OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY - SABDA.orgmedia.sabda.org/alkitab-2/PDF Books/00005 Hasel Gerhard Old...Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, 1974-) Theologische Literaturzeitung

OLD TESTAMENTTHEOLOGY

Basic Issues in the Current Debate

GERHARD E HASEL

FOURTH EDITION

WILLIAM B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANYGRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

Copyright 0 1972, 1991 by Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.255 Jefferson Ave. SE., Grand Rapids, Mich. 49503All rights reserved

Printed in the United States of America

First printing, October 1972Revised edition, 1975Revised 6 updated, 1982Revised, updated 6 enlarged, 1991Reprinted 1995

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Hasel, Gerhard EOld Testament theology: basic issues in the current debate /

Gerhard E Hasel. - 4th ed., rev., updated, and enl.

P. cm.Includes bibliographical references and indexes.ISBN 0-8028-0537-X1. Bible. O.T.-Theology. I. Title.

BS1192.5.H37 199123o-dc2o 91-6676

CIP

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS vii

PREFACE ix

INTRODUCTION 1

I. BEGINNINGS AND DEVELOPMENTOF OT THEOLOGY 10

II. THE QUESTION OF METHODOLOGY 28

III. THE QUESTION OF HISTORY, HISTORYOF TRADITION, SALVATION HISTORY, AND STORY 115

IV THE CENTER OF THE OT AND OT THEOLOGY 139

V. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TESTAMENTS 172

VI. BASIC PROPOSALS FOR DOING OT THEOLOGY 194

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 209

INDEX OF SUBJECTS 252

INDEX OF AUTHORS 2 5 8

Abbreviations

AnBibASTIAUSSBibBibSacBTBBZAW

CBQUTCTMEOTH

EvQEvTExpTimFRLANT

HBTIDB

Inter-pIRTJMJBLJBR

Analecta BiblicaAnnual of the Swedish Theological InstituteAndrews University Seminary StudiesBiblicaBibliotheca SacraBiblical Theology BulletinBeihefte zur Zeitschrif fir die alttestamenthcheWssenschaftCatholic Biblical QuarterlyCanadian Journal of TheologyConcordia Theological MonthlyEssays on Old Testament Hermeneutics, ed.C. Westermann (repr. Atlanta, 1979)Evangelical QuarterlyEvangelische TheologieExpository TimesForschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Altenund Neuen TestamentsHori’zons in Biblical TheologyInterpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (4 ~01s.;Nashville, 1962)InterpretationIssues in Religion and TheologyJournal of the American Academy of ReligionJournal of Biblical LiteratureJournal of Bible and Religion

vii

. . .Vlll ABBREVIATIONS

JETSJRJSOTKuDOaG

OBTOTCF

OTT

RHPRRSPTRSRSBLDSSBTSITTAT

TBlTBii7DhrT

TDOT

7T.zTOT

T R U

TToday7jnBul7zVTWMANT

WtlDZAWZTK

Journal of the Evangelical Theological SocietyJournal of ReligionJournal for the Study of the Old TestamentKerygma und DogmaOffenbarung als Geschichte, ed. W. Pamienberg(2nd ed.; Gettingen, 1963)Overtures to Biblical TheologyThe Old Testament and Christian Faith, ed. B. W.Anderson (New York, 1963)G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology (2 ~01s.; NewYork, 1962, 1965)Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieusesRevue des sciences philosophiques et theologiquesRecherches de science religieuseSociety of Biblical Literature Dissertation SeriesStudies in Biblical TheologyScottish Journal of TheologyG. von Rad, Theologie des Aken Testaments (5thed.; Munich, 1966)Theologische BlatterTheologische BiichereiTheological Dictionary of the New Testament (10~01s.; Grand Rapids, 1964-1976)Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament(Grand Rapids, 1974-)Theologische LiteraturzeitungW. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (2~01s.; Philadelphia, 1961, 1967)Theologische RundschauTheology TodayTyndale BulletinTheologische ZeitschrifVetus TestamentumWissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten undNeuen TestamentWart und DienstZeitschrrf fik die alttestamentliche WissenschaftZeitschrij? fiir Tbeologie und Kirche

Preface

The subject of OT theology remains at the center of the mostdebated issues in the study of the OT. Here the questionsof objectivity/subjectivity, “what it meant/what it means,”Christian and/or Jewish OT theology, the descriptive and/ornormative nature of OT theology, “above the fray” and/or“in the fray,” transcendence and/or immanence, confessionalor nonconfessional OT theology, and the like remain of coreimportance. Such matters as whether OT theology is a his-torical or a theological discipline remain hotly debated,although it appears that there is a growing trend in thedirection of affirming it as a theological enterprise. How dothe shifts from a historical paradigm to a literary and/orstructuralist paradigm in the study of the OT reflect on OTtheology? The new emphasis on “canon criticism” and the“canonical approach” have had an impact on the doing ofOT theology. These and many other items are part of thisnew edition.

It is certain that the volume of material in English, German,French, Spanish, and Italian, to mention but these languages,on the topic of OT theology and its subject areas has increasedin the last few years as never before. Thus it has been neces-sary to produce this fourth revised, updated, and enlargededition. Nearly a decade has passed since the third editionhad been produced and several reprintings had been neces-sary. All of this testifies to the wide use of this volume by

ix

X PREFACE

research and teaching staffs and students in seminaries anduniversities around the world.

We have attempted to update the various chapters withadditions and revisions to keep this volume current. Therehave been a dozen or so new OT theologies and nearly inex-haustible numbers of articles on a variety of aspects of OTtheology. It was, therefore, felt imperative to provide for thefirst time a comprehensive bibliography on OT theology withnearly 950 entries, unequaled anywhere in current literature.While such a bibliography can never be complete, it is de-signed to provide a working tool for those who wish to pursueany subject in greater detail.

My appreciation and gratitude go first of all to those sem-inary and university teachers of mine who introduced me tothe subject of OT theology and Biblical theology. My pro-fessional and academic graduate students make their owncontributions in stimulating discussions. Special thanks goesto Mr. Gary Lee, Editor, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Com-pany, for his expert assistance in getting this edition off thepress. I must express my thanks to all those who contributedto bringing this edition into existence, particularly Mrs. BettyJean Mader, whose computer skills made a world of difference,and my doctoral student Mr. Reinaldo Siqueira, who assistedin the preparation of the bibliography.

Theological SeminaryAndrews University

GERHARD E HASEL

Introduction

Old Testament theology today is undeniably in crisis. Recentmonographs and articles by European and American scholars1show that the fundamental issues and crucial questions arepresently undecided and matters of intense debate. Thoughit is centuries old, OT theology is now uncertain of its trueidentity.

George Ernest Wright tells us in The OT and Theology(New York, 1969) that he has now changed and “must sidewith Eichrodt . . .” (p. 62). Earlier, in his well-known studyGod Who Acts: Biblical Theology as Recital (SBT, 8; London,1952), he found himself close to the theological views ofGerhard von Rad with regard to the question of what con-stitutes OT theology.2 The French theologian Edmond Jacob,on the other hand, has re-entered the ongoing discussionabout the nature, function, and method of OT theology inhis most recent contribution Grundfiagen alttestamentlicherTheologie (Stuttgart, 1970), in which he further undergirdsand defends his own position. 3 The same is true of the Dutch

1. See Bibliography, pp. 209-251.2. 7&e OT and Theology, pp. 61f. Note also Wright’s essays “Reflections

Concerning OT Theology,” in Studio Biblica et Semitica. Festschrift 771. C.Vriezen (Wageningen, 19661, pp. 376-388; and “Historical Knowledge andRevelation,” in Tmnslating and Understanding the OT Essays in Honor ofHerbert G. May, ed. H. T. Frank and W. L. Reed (New York, 1970), pp. 279-303.

3. The new French edition of Thkologie de 1’AT (2nd ed.; Neuchltel, 1968)

1

2 OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

scholar Th. C. Vriezen. His thoroughly revised and ex-panded second English edition of An Outline of OT Theology(Newton, Mass., 1970)4 exhibits a new emphasis in regardto the communion concept. B. S. Childs has presented hispenetrating and daring monograph Biblical Theology in Cri-sis (1970) in which he reports on the substance, achieve-ments, and failures of the so-called Biblical Theology Move-ment in the United States, which is said to have reached its“end” and “demise.“5 He also proposes a new methodologyfor engaging in a “new Biblical Theology.“6 The Europeancounterpart to the monograph by Childs comes from the penof the German theologian Hans-Joachim Kraus, whose DieBiblische Theologie. Zhre Geschichte und Problematik (1970)is mainly concerned with the European history of the dis-cipline since 1770 .’ This indispensable tome focuses atlength on problems crucial to the discipline of OT theology(pp. 307-395).

The volume by Wilfred J. Harrington, OP, The Rdh of Bib-lical Theology (Dublin, 1973), depicts “the method, the scopeand the range of Biblical theology.” It surveys OT and NTtheology primarily on the basis of representative theologies

deals in the preface also with the problems here under discussion. Two recentarticles by Jacob are also very pertinent, “PossibilitiBs et limites d’une thho-logic biblique,” RHPR, 46 (1966], 116-130; and “La thbologie de l’AT,”Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses, 44 (1969), 420-432.

4. The 2nd English ed. is based upon the 3rd Dutch ed. of 1966, inclusive,however, of additions from the literature published after 1966.

5. The exact date for the “end” of the Biblical Theology Movement as adominant force in American theology is supposedly May 1963, the date ofthe publication of J. A. T. Robinson’s Honest to God; so B. S. Childs, BiblicalTheology in Crisis (Philadelphia, 1970), pp. 85, 91. See the reviews andcritiques by M. Barth, “Whither Biblical Theology,” Lnterp, 25/3 (July, 197x),350-354, and Gerhard E Hasel, AVSS, 10 (1972), 179-183.

6. See here especially chs. 5 and 6 entitled “The Need for a New BiblicalTheology” and “The Shape of a New Biblical Theology” in Childs, pp. 91-96,97-122.

7. It is surprising that Kraus mentions in only a few instances names ofAnglo-Saxon scholars (pp. 2, 4, 5, 334, 336, 344, 373f.). Though he covers ingreater detail much of what R. C. Dentan has covered (see Bibliography], heapparently does not even once refer to the latter’s study.

INTRODUCTION 3

but is generally less successful in depicting the complex andcontradictory relations of Biblical theology. In this respectKraus is much more comprehensive and sensitive to the issuesand problems, while Harrington brings in valuable aspects ofRoman Catholic contributions.

Five new OT theologies have appeared within a four-yearperiod, a record never before achieved and not easily dupli-cated in the future. The Catholic scholar A. Deissler pre-sents his OT theology under the title The Basic Message ofthe OT,a which reveals immediately a theological stance op-posed to that of G. von Rad, namely that the OT contains aunifying center. It is God in his relationship to the world andman.g The basic message of the OT consists of its witness tothe only, nonworldly, supratemporal, holy, personal God whois presented along the lines of the testimonies of Genesis,Exodus, Deuteronomy, the writing prophets, the priestly andwisdom traditions. W. Zimmerlila shares with Deissler theconviction that a single center can serve as an organizingprinciple. OT theology “is combined throughout of OT ex-pressions about God”11 and it is therefore “the task [of OTtheology] to present OT speaking about God in its innerconnection.“l2 In Zimmerli’s OT Theology in Outline the OTis considered a “book of address (Buche der Anrede),” whichreveals his distance from von Rad for whom the OT is a“history book (Geschichtsbuch).“13 The volume entitled Theo-logical Founding Structures of the OT by G. Fohrer14 is builtprimarily on the dual concept of the rulership of God and

8. Die Grundbotschaft des AT (Freiburg i. Br., 1972).9. At this point there is agreement with the thesis advanced by W. Zim-

merli in his review of von Rad’s OTTin v?: 13 (1969), 109.10. Grundziss der alttestamentlichen Theologie (Stuttgart, 1972). Note the

extensive discussion of this work by C. Westermann, “Zu zwei Theologiendes AT,” Ev’l: 34 (1974) 102-110.

11. Zimmerli, Grundriss, p. 7.12. F? 9.13. G. von Rad, OTT, II, 415.14. fieologische Grundstmkturen des AT (Berlin, 1972). Note also the

discussion by Westermann, Ev?: 34 (1974), 96-102.


the communion between God and man. He seems to beinfluenced by both Th. C. Vriezenls and M. Buber.16 Fohrer’swork lacks a coherent structure.~7 The same may be said ofJ. L. McKenzie’s A Theology of the OT (Garden City, 1974),which begins with a chapter on “Cult” (not covered at all byZimmerli), then discusses “Revelation,” “History,” “Nature,”“Wisdom, ” “Political and Social Institutions,” and concludeswith “The Future of Israel.” Instead of following an organiz-ing principle (a center, concept, or motif) or a particularstructure McKenzie’s approach is to choose “particular top-ics” which are “usually selected according to the personalstudies and interests. . . .“I8 Accordingly his tome is far frombeing a comprehensive guide to OT theology and for thatmatter does not claim to be one. Over against these fourtheologies which consider their task to be purely descriptiveis the presentation by C. R. Lehman, Biblical Theology I: OldTestament (Scottdale, Pa., 1971). OT theology is understoodas part of Biblical theology and is built on “the fundamentalidea of progressive revelation” and the “grand unity of theentire Bible.“19 “ Biblical theology studies God’s revelation inthe setting of biblical history,” which means “the unfoldingof divine revelation concerning the covenants recorded inthe Bible.“20 Lehman, therefore, provides a combination ofthe history of Israel’s religion and OT theology under therubric of Biblical theology.

Never in the history of OT theology has such a short spanof time produced as many OT theologies as the years 1978-1981. In that period no less than seven tomes were publishedin English or German on OT theology by scholars from Europe

15. Especially in the concept of “communion” which is Vriezen’s centerof the OT (infia, Chapter IV) and the selection “The Personal Structure” (pp.133ff.).

16. This is evident in the “correlation” principle and the strong emphasison “the faith of the prophets.”

17. There is essentially no relationship between Chapters l-3 and 4-7.18. McKenzie, ‘l’heology of the 07: p. 23.19. Lehman, Biblical Theology I: OT, p. 8.20. l? 37.

INTRODUCTION 5

and North America. Claus Westermann published his Ele-ments of OT Theology (Atlanta, 1982),21 and Walther Zim-merli’s Grundriss der alttestmentlichen Theologie was trans-lated into English as OT Theology in Outline (Atlanta, 1978).22Professor Ronald E. Clements published his OT Theology: AFresh Approach (Suffolk, 1978; Atlanta, 1979). His “fresh ap-proach” consists of emphasizing the two major categories of“law” and “promise” as the fundamental unifying themes ofthe OT for.Jews and Christians respectively.

In North America three evangelical scholars entered thefray of OT theology writing. Walter C. Kaiser produced hisToward an OT Theology (Grand Rapids, 1978) which centerson the promise theme along a chronological axis. Elmer A.Martens published his OT theology under the title God’s De-sign:A Focus on OT Theology (Grand Rapids, 1981).23 The titleThemes in OT Theology (Downers Grove, IL, 1979) was givento a volume by. W. A. Dyrness, who uses the conventionalGod-Man-Salvation scheme for his presentation.

Samuel Terrien enriched the scholarly and larger theolog-ical reading community with his impressive tome The ElusivePresence: Toward a New Biblical Theology (San Francisco,1978), in which he produced a major new paradigm for thediscipline by challenging the prevailing covenant-orientedBiblical theology.

In 1985 Brevard S. Childs constructed the “canonical ap-proach” for the discipline of OT theology with the publicationof his long-awaited OT Theology in a Canonical Context (Lon-don, 1985; Philadelphia, 1986), breaking new ground in thediscipline and departing from well-established approaches.Paul D. Hanson had published several books,24 preparing the

21. Westermann’s German original appeared in 1978 under the titleTheologie des AT in Grundztigen (Gettingen, 1978).

22. The 5th German ed., which was revised and enlarged, was publishedposthumously in 1985. Zimmerli died in 1983.

23. This volume was copublished in Great Britain under the title Plotand Purpose in the OT (Leicester, 1981).

24. Paul D. Hanson, Dynamic ‘linnscendence: The Correlation of Con-


way for his substantive volume, 7&e People Called: The Growthof the Community in the Bible (San Francisco, 1986), in whichhe stresses the interaction of ancient and modern communi-ties of faith who witness confessionally to the divine activityin history. His emphasis is built on the view that the OT aswell as the Bible as a whole does not wish to be understoodas absolute truth that was revealed in the past and is to remainthe standard for faith of the community of faith in the present.It is rather a process of.the unfolding divine encounter. Han-son significantly departs in this approach from BrevardChilds, one of his esteemed teachers. These scholars presentactually two divergent approaches that seem to pose aneither/or choice for doing OT theology.

Now, there is a debate that has just begun regarding thequestion whether OT theology is a distinctly Christian enter-prise or whether Jews can and should have a part in it. Is OTtheology or the theology of the Hebrew Bible an enterprise inwhich Jews and Christians can cooperate or join forces? Is itbuilt on such neutral-or better, “objective” or scientific-methods and procedures that it does not matter what thepersonal faith stance of the scholar is who engages in thisenterprise? Can a pure “what it meant” stance be maintained?Since the Scripture designated the OT is so designated fromthe Christian point of view, where it is the first part of oneBible, consisting of two testaments with the NT concludingthe entire Bible,25 some have suggested that OT theologyshould rather be called “theology of the Hebrew Bible.” Thelatter is the designation chosen in recent years for the sectionon OT theology at the annual meetings of the Society of

fessional Heritage and Contempomry Experience in a Biblical Model of DivineActivity (Philadelphia, 1978); idem, 7Ite Diversity of Scripture: A TheologicalInterpretation (OBT, 11; Philadelphia, 1982).

25. See D. L. Baker, Two Testaments, One Bible (Downers Grovebeicester,1977); S. M. Mayo, The Relevance of the OTfor the Christian With: BiblicalTheology and Intequetative Methodology (Washington, D.C., 1982); H. D.Preuss, Das AT in christlicher Predigt (Stuttgart/Berlin/Koln/Mainz, 1984);Henning Graf Reventlow, Problems of Biblical Theology in the Twentieth Cen-tury (Philadelphia, 1986), among others.

INTRODUCTION 7

Biblical Literature.26 Such renaming of the discipline is in-dicative of a host of important issues that we will reflect uponlater.

For now it will suffice that some Jewish scholars are willingto be participants in the debate and in some sense the enter-prise of a theology of the Hebrew Bible, but with significantdistinctions.27 For example, Professor Jon D. Levenson writeson the subject28 and has published a book entitled Creationand the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Om-nipotence (San Francisco, 1988), which is a (kind of) theologyof the Hebrew Bible. He believes that the OT, or Hebrew Bible,is “contextualized” within either the Jewish or the Christiantraditions and, therefore, an “ecumenical [interfaith] biblicaltheology” is possible at best only within a very limited area“of smaller literary and historical contexts.“2s

Before we break up our highlighting of current trends, weneed to make reference to two new studies on the history anddevelopment of the discipline of OT theology. Henning GrafReventlow published his Problems of OT Theologv in the Twen-tieth Century (Philadelphia, 1985).30 This concise volume isfilled with bibliographical information and has been appro-priately described as “an extended bibliographical essay con-

26. It is to be noted in this connection that articles in the journal BZBin recent years have refrained from using the designation “Old Testament,”which has been replaced by “First Testament.” The “New Testament” is called“Second Testament.”

27. See Chapter II below, under “The Descriptive and/or NormativeTasks.”

28. See, e.g., Jon D. Levenson, “Why Jews Are Not Interested in BiblicalTheology,” in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Ismel, ed. J. Neusner, B. A.Levine, and E. S. Frerichs (Philadelphia, 1987), pp. 281-307; idem, “TheEighth Principle of Judaism and the Literary Simultaneity of Scripture,” JR,68 (1988), 205-225. See also M. Goshen-Gottstein, “Tanakh Theology: TheReligion of the OT and the Place of Jewish Biblical Theology,” in AncientIsmelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Fmnk Moore Cross, ed. I? D. Miller, I? D.Hanson, and S. D. McBride (Philadelphia, 1987), pp. 617-644; M. Tsevat,“Theology of the OT-A Jewish View,” HB?: 8/Z (1986), 33-50.

29. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, p. 225.30. The translation of Hauptprobleme der alttestamentlichen Theologie

im 26. Jahrhundert (Darmstadt, 1982).


cerning the major questions arising from attempts to presentan Old Testament theology in the twentieth century” (R. E.Clements on the dust jacket). It is an excellent work for theadvanced student or specialist with a particular interest in theproblem of “history” and how it has affected the study of OTtheology and is still exercising issues at present. But it hardlydeals with the matter of the current appropriation or “actual-ization” attempts on the part of OT theologians, and it waspublished too long ago to deal much with the significantinfluence of the literary paradigms on Scripture study. Anydiscussion of the relationship between the OT and NT isexcluded from this volume.31

The best history of the developments of OT theology, inthe English language, was published by John H. Hayes andFrederick Prussner under the title OT Theology: Its History andDevelopment (Atlanta, 1985). John Hayes expanded, revised,and updated the first part of Prussner’s doctoral dissertation,which he completed in 1952. It is a very respectable studyand is particularly significant for the early period and into1950. The succeeding thirty years are touched on in muchbriefer fashion, although this is the period of greatest activityand greatest divergence in the 20th century. But this may nothave been the interest of the authors. It is, however, the focusof the present volume.

The issues connected with the discipline of OT theologyare legion and, as we shall see, are evidently becoming evenmore complex. Is OT theology a confessional enterprise? Oris OT theology a “neutral” and “objective” scientific enterprisefrom which any religious commitment is shut out? Is it anenterprise built on the canonical form of the biblical witnessor is it to penetrate below or behind the text as it is available?Is it to describe the reconstructed layers and the socio-culturalforces that were at work in their production as a theology of

31. Reventlow published a second volume dealing with this subject andother matters under the title Problems of Biblical TheoZogv in the ‘RventiethCentury (Philadelphia, 1986).

INTRODUCTION 9

the tradition-building processes? Is it to describe the inten-tions of the authors of the biblical texts or is it to describe theforces that were at work in the production of the text? Is it tobridge the gap between the past and the present by means ofone or more philosophical systems? Is it a part of historicalstudy, or the history-of-religions study, or literary study, ortheological study, or a combination of these and other ap-proaches? These and many other penetrating issues and mat-ters will receive attention in the following pages.

These recent major contributions in monograph form indi-cate that the debate concerning the nature, function, method,and shape of OT theology continues unabated. The recent OTtheologies demonstrate that the whole enterprise of OT the-ology and more broadly Biblical theology remains in a stateof flux. Recent developments have made the situation evenmore complex than before.

Each responsible exegete and theologian will continue toprobe into the basic issues that determine the character of OT(and NT) theology and thus Biblical theology. Our presenta-tion does not aim to be exhaustive or complete but seeks to.touch on those factors and issues that in the present writer’sview are major unresolved problems. We attempt to focus onthe origin and development of Biblical and then OT theologyin order to highlight major roots of basic issues in the currentdebate on OT theology. Our focus on crucial issues which areat the center of the fundamental problems in the currentdebate have thus a broad foundation. On the basis of thisdiscussion our own suggestions for doing OT theology will beput forth in the last chapter.

I. Beginnings and Developmentof OT Theology

This chapter is designed to survey major trends in the historyof Biblical and OT theology from their beginnings to therevival of OT theology after World War I.1 This historicalsurvey is to provide the background for the current debateabout the scope, purpose, nature, and function of OT theology.Since OT theology is part of Biblical theology, the formercannot be studied in isolation from the latter.

A. Idiom the Reformation to the Enlightenment. The Protestantprinciple of “sola scriptura,“2 which became the battle cry of theReformation against scholastic theology and ecclesiasticaltradition, provides with its call for the self-interpretation ofScripture (sui ipsius interpres) the source for the subsequentdevelopment of Biblical theology.3 The Reformers did not createthe phrase “Biblical theology” nor did they engage in Biblicaltheology as a discipline as subsequently understood.

1. Among histories of Biblical theology are the following: R. C. Dentan,Preface to OT Theology (2nd ed.; New York, 1963); H.-J. Kraus, Die biblischeTheologie, Ihre Geschischte und Pmblematik (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1970);0. Merk, Biblische Theologie des NT in ihrer Anfmgszeit (Marburg, 1972);C. T. Fritsch, “New Trends in OT Theology,” BibSac, 103 (1946), 293-305;E. Wiirthwein, “Zur Theologie des AT,” 7&R, 36 (1971). 185-208.

2. For the use of this principle in the pre-Reformation period, seeH. Oberman, The Harvest ofMedieval Theology (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, 1967),pp. 201, 361-363, 377, 380-390.

3. G. Ebeling, “The Meaning of ‘Biblical Theology,’ ” in Word and Ruth(London, 1963), pp. 81-86.

10

BEGINNINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF OT THEOLOGY 11

The phrase “Biblical theology” is used in a twofold sense:(1) It can designate a theology which is rooted in its teachingsin Scripture and bases its foundation on Scripture, or (2) itcan designate the theology which the Bible itself contains.4In the latter sense it is a specific theological discipline, theorigin and development of which we briefly describe.

Luther’s hermeneutic of “sola scriptura” and his principle“was Christum treibet” together with the “letter-spirit” dual-isms prevented him from developing a Biblical theology.Among some representatives of the Radical Reformation anapproach resembling that of later Biblical theology was devel-oped in the early 1530s by 0. Glait and Andreas Fischer.6

It was not until a hundred years after the Reformation thatthe phrase “Biblical theology” actually appears for the firsttime in Wolfgang Jacob Christmann’s Teutsche Biblische Theo-logie (Kempten, 1629). His work is presently not extant.’ Butthe work of Henricus A. Diest entitled Theologia biblica(Daventri, 1643) is available and permits the earliest insightinto the nature of an emerging discipline. “Biblical theology”is understood to consist of “proof-texts” from Scripture, takenindiscriminately from both Testaments in order to support thetraditional “systems of doctrine” of early protestant Or-thodoxy. The subsidiary role of “Biblical theology” overagainst dogmatics was firmly established by Abraham Ca-lovius, one of the most significant representatives of Protes-tant Orthodoxy, when he applied “Biblical theology” as a

4. W. Wrede, iiberAufgabe und Methode der sogenannten Neutestament-lichen Theologie (Gettingen, 1897), p. 79; Ebeling, Word and With, pp. 79-81;K. Stendahl. “Method in the Studv of Biblical Theolonv,” in The Bible inModern Scholarship, ed. J. P Hyatt (Nashville, 1965),pp. 202-205; Merk,Biblische Theologie, p. 7.

5. G. Ebeling, “Die Anfange von Luthers Hermeneutik,” Znc 48 (1951),172-230, esp. 187-208.

6. G. E Hasel, “Capito, Schwenckfeld and Crautwald on SabbatarianAnabaptist Theology,” Mennonite Quarterly Review, 46 (1972), 41-57.

7. Quoted in M. Lipenius, Bibliotheca r&is theologica omnium marteri-arum (Frankfurt, 1685), tom. I, col. 1709, and first referred to by Ebeling,Word and Ruth, p. 84 n. 3.


designation of what was before called theologia exegetica. Inhis work Biblical “proof-texts,” which were called dicta pro-bantia and later designated collegia biblica, had the role ofsupporting dogmatics. Calovius’ lasting contribution was toassign to Biblical theology the role of a subsidiary disciplinethat supported Protestant orthodox doctrines. Biblical the-ology as a subsidiary discipline of orthodox dogmatics is evi-dent in the Biblical theologies of Sebastian Schmidt (1671),Johann Hiilsemann (1679), Johann Heinrich Maius (1689),Johann Wilhelm Baier (1716-19), and Christian EberhardWeismann (1739).g

The back-to-the-Bible emphasis of German Pietism broughtabout a changing direction for Biblical theology.lO In PietismBiblical theology became a tool in the reaction against aridProtestant Orthodoxy. 11 Philipp Jacob Spener (1635-1705), afounding father of Pietism, opposed Protestant scholasticismwith “Biblical theology.“12 The influence of Pietism is re-flected in the works of Carl Haymann (1708), J. Deutschmann(1710), and J. C. Weidner (1722), which oppose orthodox sys-tems of doctrine with “Biblical theology.“13

As early as 1745 “Biblical theology” is clearly separatedfrom dogmatic (systematic) theology and the former is con-ceived of as being the foundation of the latter.14 This means

8. Calovius, Systema locorum theologicorum I (Withenbergae, 1655).9. Schmidt, Collegium Bib&urn in quo dicta et Novi Testamentiiuxta seriem

locorum communium theologicorum explinatur (Strassburg, 1671); Htilsemamr,Kmficiae Sanctae Scriptume per loca classica systemotis theologici (Lipsiae,1679); Maius, Synopsis theologiae ju&cae veteris et nova (Giessen, 1698); Baier,Analysis et vindicatio illustrium scriptume (Altdorf, 1716-19); Weismann, Insti-tutiones tbeologiae exegetico-dogmaticae (‘Iiibingen, 1739).

10. 0. Betz, “History of Biblical Theology,” IDB, I, 432.11. Dentan, Preface to OT Theology, p. 17; Merk, Biblische Theologie, pp.

18-20; Kraus, Biblische Theologie, pp. 24-30.12. P. J. Spener, Pia Desideria (Frankfurt, 1675). trans. and ed. T. G.

Tappert (Philadelphia, 1964), pp. 54f.13. Haymann, Biblische Theologie (Leipzig, 1708); Deutschmann, Theo-

logia Biblica (1710); Weidner, Deutsche Theologia Biblica (Leipzig, 1722).14. So in an unsigned article in J. H. Zedler, ed., Grosses vollstandiges

Vniversallexikon (Leipzig and Halle, 1745; repr. Graz, 1962), Vol. 43, col. 849,866f., 920f. Cf. Merk, Biblische Theologie, p. 20.


that Biblical theology is emancipated from a role merely sub-sidiary to dogmatics. Inherent in this new development is thepossibility that Biblical theology can become the rival of dog-matics and turn into a completely separate and independentdiscipline. These possibilities realized themselves under theinfluence of rationalism in the age of Enlightenment.

B. The Age of Enlightenment. In the age of Enlightenment(AufZdarung) a totally new approach for the study of the Biblewas developed under several influences. First and foremost wasrationalism’s reaction against any form of supernaturalism.15Human reason was set up as the final criterion and chief sourceof knowledge, which meant that the authority of the Bible as theinfallible record of divine revelation was rejected. The secondmajor contribution of the period of the Enlightenment wasthe development of a new hermeneutic, the historical-criticalmethod’s which holds sway to the present day in liberalism andbeyond. Third, there is the application of radical literary criti-cism to the Bible by J. B. Witter, J. Astruc, and others. Finally,rationalism by its very nature was led to abandon the orthodoxview of the inspiration of the Bible so that ultimately the Biblebecame simply one of the ancient documents, to be studied asany other ancient d0cument.l’

15. English deism as represented by John Locke (1632-17041, John Toland(1670-1722). Matthew Tindal (1657-1733), and Thomas Chubb (1679-1747)with its emphasis on reason’s supremacy over revelation was paralleled onthe Continent with the “rational orthodoxy” of Jean A. Turretini (1671-1737),and such figures as S. J. Baumgarten, J. S. Semler (1725-1791). J. D. Michaelis(1717-1791). See W. G. Kiimmel, 7Ite ArB The History of the Investigation ofits Problems (Nashville, 1972), pp. 51-72 (hereafter cited as History); H.-J.Kraus, Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des AT (2nd ed.;Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969), pp. 70ff.

16. G. Ebeling, “The Significance of the Critical Historical Method forChurch and Theology in Protestantism, ” in Word and Faith, pp. 17-61; U.Wilckens, “ijber die Bedeutung historischer Kritik in der Bibelexegese,” Washeisst Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift? ed. W. Joest et al. (Regensburg, 1966),pp. 85ff.; J. E. Benson, “The History of the Historical-Critical Method in theChurch,” Dialog, 12 (1973), 94-103; K. Scholder, Vrspriinge und Pmbleme derBibelkritik im 17. Jahrhundert. Ein Beitmg zur Entstehung der historisch-kritischen Theologie (Munich, 1966).

17. The key figure is J. S. Semler, whose four-volume Abhandlung von


Under the partial impetus of Pietism and with a strong doseof rationalism Anton Friedrich Biisching’s publications (1756-58) reveal for the first time that “Biblical theology” becomes therival of dogmatics. 1s Protestant dogmatics, also called “scholas-tic theology,” is criticized for its empty speculations and lifelesstheories. G. Ebeling has aptly summarized that “from beingmerely a subsidiary discipline of dogmatics ‘biblical theology’now became a rival of the prevailing dogmatics.“19

A chief catalyst in the “revolution of hermeneutics”20 wasthe rationalist Johann Solomo Semler (1725-1791), whosefour-volume Treatise on the Fkee Investigation of the Canon(1771-75) claimed that the Word of God and Holy Scriptureare not at all identical.21 This implied that not all parts of theBible were inspired22 and that the Bible is a purely historicaldocument which as any other such document is to be inves-tigated with a purely historical and thus critical method-ology.23 As a result Biblical theology can be nothing else buta historical discipline which stands in antithesis to traditionaldogmatics.24

A highly significant step toward a separation of Biblicaltheology from dogmatics came in the four-volume work ofBiblical theology (1771-75) by Gotthilf Traugott Zacharia(1729-1777).25 Under the influence of the new orientation in

derfieien Vntersuchung des Kanons (1771-75) fought the orthodox doctrineof inspiration. Kraus, Geschichte, pp. 103ff.

18. A. E Biisching, Dissertatio inauguralis exhibens epitomen tbeologiaee solis literis sac& concinnatae (Gijttingen, 1756); idem, Epitome Theologiae(Lemgoviae, 1757); idem, Gedanken von der Beschaffenheit und dem Vonugder biblisch-dogmatischen Theologie vor der scholastischen (Lemgo, 1758).

19. Ebeling, Word and Edith, p. 87.20. Dentan, Preface, p. 19.21. Ktimmel, History, p. 63.22. G. Hornig, Die Anfiinge der historisch-kritischen Theologie (Gottingen,

1961), pp. 56ff.23. Merk, Biblische Zbeologie, p. 22.24. Hornig, Die Anfange, pp. 57f.; Merk, Biblische Theologie, pp. 23f.25. G. T. Zacharia, Biblische Theologie oder Vntersuchung des biblischen

Grundes der vornehmsten theologischen Lehren (Giittingen and Kiel, 1771-75);Dentan, Preface, p. 21; Kraus, Biblische Theologie, pp. 31-39; Merk, BiblischeTheologie, pp. 23-26.


dogmatics and hermeneutics he attempted to build a systemof theological teachings based upon careful exegetical work.Each book of Scripture has its own time, place, and intention.But Zacharia held to the inspiration of the Bible,26 as did J. A.Ernesti (1707-l 781)27 whose Biblical-exegetical method he fol-lowed.28 Historical exegesis and canonical understanding ofScripture do not collide in Zacharia’s thought because “thehistorical aspect is a matter of secondary importance in the-ology.“29 On this basis there is no need to distinguish betweenthe Testaments; they stand in reciprocal relationship to eachother. Most basically Zacharia’s interest was still in the dog-matic system, which he wished to cleanse from impurities.

The works of W. E Hufnagel (1785-89)30 and the rationalistC. E von Ammon (1792)31 hardly distinguish themselves instructure and design from that of Zacharia. Hufnagel’s Biblicaltheology consists of a “historical-critical collection of Biblicalproof-texts supporting dogmatics.“32 Von Ammon took upideas of Semler and the philosophers Lessing and Kant andpresented actually more a “philosophical theology.” Signifi-cant in his treatment is the higher evaluation of the NT thanthe OT,33 which is a first step toward an independent treat-ment of OT theology34 which was realized four years later byG. L. Bauer.

The late Neologist and rationalist Johann Philipp Gabler(1753-1826), who never wrote or even intended to write aBiblical theology, made a most decisive and far-reaching con-

26. Zacharia, Biblische Theologie, I, p. VI.27. J. A. Ernesti, lnstitntio interpres Novi Testamenti (Leipzig, 1761);

Ktimmel, History, pp. 6Of.28. Kraus, Biblische Theologie, p. 35.29. Zacharia, Biblische Theologie, I, p. LXVI.30. W. E Hufnagel, Handbuch der biblischen Theologie (Erlangen, Vol. I,

1785; Vol. II, 1789).31. C. I? von Ammon, Entwurf einer reinen biblischen Theologie, 3 ~01s.

(Erlangen, 1792). Cf. Kraus, Biblische Theologie, pp. 40-51.32. D. G. C. von CBlln, Biblische Theologie (Leipzig, 1836), I, 22.33. Kraus, Biblische Theologie, p. 51.34. Dentan, Preface, p. 26.


tribution to the development of the new discipline in hisinaugural lecture at the University of Altdorf on March 30,1787.35 This year marks the beginning of Biblical theology’srole as a purely historical discipline, completely independentfrom dogmatics. Gabler’s famous definition reads: “Biblicaltheology possesses a historical character, transmitting whatthe sacred writers thought about divine matters; dogmatictheology, on the contrary, possesses a didactic character,teaching what a particular theologian philosophizes aboutdivine matters in accordance to his ability, time, age, place,sect or school, and other similar things.“36 Gabler’s inductive,historical, and descriptive approach to Biblical theology isbased on three essential methodological considerations:(I) Inspiration is to be left out of consideration, because “theSpirit of God most emphatically did not destroy in every holyman his own ability to understand and the measure of naturalinsight into things.“s’ What counts is not “divine authority”but “only what they [Biblical writers] thought.“38 (2) Biblicaltheology has the task of gathering carefully the concepts andideas of the individual Bible writers, because the Bible doesnot contain the ideas of just a single man. Therefore theopinions of Bible writers need to be “carefully assembled”from Holy Writ, suitably arranged, properly related to generalconcepts, and carefully compared with one another. . . .“3gThis task can be accomplished by means of a consistent ap-plication of the historical-critical method with the aid of lit-

35. J. F! Gabler, “Oratio de iusto discrimine theologicae biblicae etdogmaticae regundisque recte utriusque finibus” [“About the Correct Distinc-tion of Biblical and Dogmatic Theology and the Right Definition of theirGoals”], in Kleine theologische Schnften, ed. Th. A. Gabler and J. G. Gabler(Ulm, 1831), II, 179-198. Acomplete German translation is provided by Merk,Biblische Theologie, pp. 273-284; a partial English translation is found inKiimmel, History, pp. 98-100.

36. “Oratio,” in KZeine theologische Schriften, II, 183-184. Cf. R. Smend,“J. P Gablers Begriindung der biblischen Theologie,” Ev’l: 22 (1962), 345-367;Kraus, Biblische Theologie, pp. 52-59; Merk, Biblische Zbeologie, pp. 29-140.

37. kleine theologische Schrijten, II, 186.38. I? 186; Ktimmel, History, p. 99.39. I? 187; Ktimmel, History p. 100.

BEGINNINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF OT THEOLOGY 1 7

erary criticism, historical criticism, and philosophical criti-cism.4a (3) Biblical theology as a historical discipline is bydefinition obliged to “distinguish between the several periodsof the old and new religion”41 The main task is to investigatewhich ideas are of importance for Christian doctrine, namelywhich ones “apply today” and which ones have no “validityfor our time.“42 These programmatic declarations gave direc-tion to the future of Biblical (OT and NT) theology despitethe fact that Gabler’s program for Biblical theology was con-ditioned by his time and contains significant limitations.43

The goal of a strictly historical Biblical theology is for thefirst time realized by Georg Lorenz Bauer (1755-1806),44 astudent of J. G. Eichhorn. Bauer is to be credited as the firstto publish an OT theology, under the title Theologie des AT(Leipzig, 1796).45 Bauer has the credit, for better or for worse,for having separated Biblical theology into OT and NT the-ology.46 Bauer’s Theologie des AT has the threefold structureof (1) Theology, (2) Anthropology, and (3) Christology. Thisreveals his dependence on the system of dogmatic theology.As a “historical-critical rationalist”4’ Bauer’s determiningposition in the development of Biblical (OT and NT) theologywas his consistent application of the historical-critical methodsupported with rationalism’s emphasis on historical reason.48His historical-critical reconstruction of the manifoldness ofthe Biblical witnesses raised among other problems the matterof the relationship between the Testaments, a problem under

40. Merk, Biblische Theologie, pp. 68-81.41. Gabler, “Oratio,” in Kleine theologische Schriften, II, 186; Kiimmel,

History, p. 99.42. I? 191; Ktimmel, History, p. 100.43. Merk, Biblische Theologie, pp. 87-90, 111-113.44. See especially Kraus, Biblische Theologie, pp. 87-91 and Merk,

Biblische Theologie, pp. 141-203.45. Shortly later he published in four volumes a Biblische Theologie des

NT (Leipzig, 1800-1802).46. This separate treatment Gabler had called for in his inaugural lecture

of March 30, 1787.47. Merk, Biblische Tlreologie, p. 202.48. P 199.


vigorous debate today. Furthermore, the whole issue of Bibli-cal theology’s nature as a purely historical discipline asvigorously maintained by Gabler and consequently by Bauerand others is again questioned in the recent debate, as is thequestion of the nature of the descriptive task. Nevertheless,Gabler and Bauer are the founders of the independent disci-pline of Biblical and OT theology.

C. From the Enlightenment to Dialectical Theology It hasbeen shown how during the age of the Enlightenment thediscipline of Biblical theology freed itself from a role sub-sidiary to dogmatics to become its rival. The subsequentdevelopment reveals that the new historical discipline suc-cumbed to and was dominated by various philosophicalsystems, then experienced the challenge of conservativeBiblical scholarship, and finally was eclipsed by the “his-tory-of-religions” (Religionsgeschichte) approach. In the de-cades after World War I it received new life in the period ofdialectical theology.

The early decades of the nineteenth century witness theappearance of several significant works. Gottlob Ph. Chr.Kaiser published three volumes on Biblical theology between1813 and 1821.4g Along with his rationalistic approach herejected any kind of supernaturalism and attempted to de-lineate the historio-genetic development of OT religion. Hewas the first to apply a “history-of-religions” approach, andsubordinated all Biblical and nonbiblical aspects under theprinciple of “universal religion.”

The work of W. M. L. de Wette, Biblische Dogmatik (1813),a student of Gabler, marked the first move away from ratio-nalism. He adopted Kantian philosophy as mediated by J. EFries and became the first Biblical theologian who combinedBiblical theology with a system of philosophy.50 His highersynthesis of faith and feeling moved in a “genetic develop-

49. G. I? C. Kaiser, Die biblische Theologie, 3 ~01s. (Erlangen, 1813, 1814,1821). Cf. Dentan, Preface, pp. 28f.; Kraus, Biblische Theologie, pp. 57f.; Merk,Biblische Theologie, pp. 214-2 16.

50. Kraus, Biblische Theologie, p. 72.


ment” of religion from Hebraism via Judaism to Chris-tianism.51

The two-volume work of the moderate rationalist D. C.von Colln, which was published in 1836, deals in its firstpart with the Biblical Theology of the OT.52 It reacts stronglyto de Wette’s introduction of philosophy into Biblical the-ology. Von Colln presented a historical Biblical theologywith a strong theocratic emphasis. As others before him, hemoved within the tension of particularism and universalismand delineated a historical developmentalism of Hebraism-Judaism-Christianism.

Wilhelm Vatke (1806-1882)53 regarded the “rationalistic pe-riod of Biblical theology as a necessary but now supersededdevelopment. He was the first to adopt the Hegelian philoso-phy of thesis (nature religion), antithesis (spiritual religion =Hebrew religion), and synthesis (absolute or universal religion= Christianity), in his Die biblische Theologie. Die Religiondes AT (Berlin, 1835). He claimed that the system for thearrangement of the OT material must not be set forth on thebasis of categories derived from the Bible but must be imposedfrom the outside,54 and formulated the dogma of the “history-of-religion” approach concerning the “independent totality”of the OT.55 Three years after the publication of Vatke’s tome,which later had great influence on J. Wellhausen,sa a second“history-of-religions” OT theology based on Hegelianism waspublished by Bruno Bauer (1809-1882),57 who arrived at op-posite conclusions from his teacher Vatke.58

51. Merk, Biblische Theologie, pp. 210-214.52. Biblische Theologie, 2 ~01s. (Leipzig, 1836). Cf. Kraus, Biblische Theo-

logie, pp. 60-69.53. L. Perlitt, Vat& und Wellhausen (Berlin, 1965).54. W. Vatke, Biblische Theologie. Die Religion des AT (Berlin, 1835), pp.

4f.55. Kraus, Biblische Theologie, pp. 93-96.56. Dentan, Preface, p. 36.57. B. Bauer, Die Religion des ATin dergeschichtlichen Entwicklung ihrer

Principien, 2 ~01s. (Berlin, 1838).58. Moderate Hegelianism is also present in L. Noack, Die Biblische


During the middle of the nineteenth century a very power-ful conservative reaction against the rationalistic and philo-sophical approaches to OT (and Biblical) theology arose onthe part of those who denied the validity of the historical-critical approach and from those who attempted to combinea moderate historical approach with the acceptance of divinerevelation. E. W. Hengstenberg’s Christology of the OT (1829-1835)59 argued against the validity of the historical-criticalmethodology as applied to the Bible and made little distinc-tion between the Testaments.

A moderate historical approach with due allowance for theauthority and inspiration of the OT is manifested in the post-humously published OT theologies of J. C. E Steudel (1840),60H. A. C. Haevernick (1848),61 and G. E Oehler (1873-74).62Steudel insisted on the grammatical-historical method andrejected the destructive historical-critical method. He main-tained the divine origin of the OT but rejected the narrowview of “verbal inspiration.“63 He was strongly critical of thesubjectivity of the Hegelians 64 but has been classified himselfas a “rational supernaturalist.” In his structure of OT theologyhe followed the God-Man-Salvation system of dogmatics.Haevernick adopted the idea of developmentalism of OT re-ligion in the form of “primitive religion-law-prophets,” andheld on to the God-Man-Salvation scheme. At the same time

Theologie, Einleitung ins AJte und Neue Testament und Darstellung des Lehrge-haltes der biblischen Biicher (Halle, 1853), who combined a strange conglom-eration of ideas of historical-critical research of de Wette and Vatke for theOT and E C. Barn for the NT.

59. The German original is entitled Christologie des AT (Berlin, 1829-1835) and was first translated into English in 1854. It was a collector’s itemuntil recently when it was reprinted by MacDonald Publ. Comp., PO. Box6006, MacDill AFB, Florida 33608.

60. J. C. E Steudel, Vorlesungen tiber die Theologie desAT, ed. G. E Oehler(Berlin, 1840).

61. H. A. C. Haevernick, Vorlesungen iiber die Theologie des AT ed.E. Hahn (Erlangen, 1848).

62. G. E Oehler, Theologie des AT 2 ~01s. (Bibingen, 1873, 1874).63. Steudel, Vorlesungen, pp. 44-51, 64.64. Dentan, Preface, p. 42.


he sought to distinguish between the Testaments and neutral-ized dogmatic-orthodox axioms.

Oehler’s contribution was the most significant and lasting.He was the first since Gabler to publish a volume dealingextensively with the theory and method of a Biblical-theologicalunderstanding of OT theology.65 His massive Theology of the OTappeared in French and English.66 Oehler reacted both againstthe Marcionite strain introduced by E Schleiermacher with thedepreciation of the OT and the total uniformity of OT and NTas maintained by Hengstenberg.67 But he himself does not giveup the unity of the Testaments. There is unity in diversity.68Oehler accepts the division of OT and NT theology,69 but OTtheology can function properly only within the larger canonicalcontext. OT theology is a “historical science which is basedupon grammatical-historical exegesis whose task it is to repro-duce the content of the Biblical writings according to the rulesof language under consideration of the historical circumstancesduring which the writings originated and the individual condi-tions of the sacred writers.““’ The proper method for Biblicaltheology is “the historico-genetic” approach according to whichgrammatical-historical exegesis, not historical-critical exegesis,is to be combined with an “organic process of development” ofOT religion.71 Oehler’s OT theology is considered to be “theoutstanding salvation-historical presentation of Biblical the-ology of the 19th century.“72 However, it is “today almostcompletely outmoded, largely because Oehler attempted to dealwith the material genetically”73 under the influence of Hege1.74

65. G. E Oehler, Prolegomena zur Theologie des AT (Stuttgart, 1845).66. English translations by E. D. Smith and S. Taylor (Edinburgh, 1874-

75) and G. E. Day (New York, 1883).67. Oehler, Theologie, I, 3-4.68. Pp. 29-31, 70.69. I? 33.70. p. 66.71. Pp. 67-68.72. Kraus, Biblische Theologie, p. 106.73. Dentan, Preface, pp. 45f.74. Oehler, Pmlegomena, p. x.


A significant part of the conservative reaction came toexpression in the “salvation-history school” with such theo-logians as Gottfried Menken (1768-1831),75 Johann T. Beck(1804-1878),‘s and especially J. Ch. Konrad von Hofmann(1810-1877).77 The “salvation-history school” of the nine-teenth century is based upon (1) the history of the people ofGod as “expressed in the Word”; (2) the idea of the inspirationof the Bible; and (3) the (preliminary) result of the historybetween God and man in Jesus Christ. Von Hofmann foundin the Bible a record of linear saving history in which theactive Lord of history is the triune God whose purpose andgoal it is to redeem mankind. Since Jesus Christ is theprimordial goal of the world to which salvation history aimsand from which it receives its meaning,78 the OT containssalvation-historical proclamation. This an OT theology has toexpound. Each book of the Bible is assigned its logical placein the scheme of salvation history. The Bible is not to beregarded primarily as a collection of proof-texts or a repositoryof doctrine but a witness to God’s activity in history whichwill not be fully completed until the eschatological consum-mation. The influence of the “salvation-history school” on thedevelopment of both OT and NT theology has been consid-erable and is felt to the present day, though with great varia-tion and in new forms.79

Just before OT theology was eclipsed by the “history-of-religions” approach, which dealt it a virtual deathblow, Hen-rich Ewald’s four-volume monumental magnum opus was

75. The importance of his place in this school has been demonstratedby Kraus, Biblische Theologie, pp. 240-244.

76. Pp. 244-247.77. J. Ch. K. von Hofmann, Weissagung und Erfiillung im Alten und

Neuen Testamente (Nordlingen, 1841-44); idem, Der Schriftbeweis (Nord-lingen, 1852-56); idem, Biblische Hermeneutik, ed. J. Hofmeister and Volck(Nordlingen, 1880), trans. Interpreting the Bible (Minneapolis, 1959).

78. Weissagung und E&!lung, I, 40.79. In the field of OT theology an influence is explicit in 0. Procksch,

Theologie des AT (Gtitersloh, 1950), pp. 17-19, 44-47; G. von Rad, Oil: II,357ff.; and others (see below, Ch. III). In the field of NT theology, see G. E.Ladd, A Theology of the NT (Grand Rapids, 1974), pp. 16-21, for those whomay be counted among present-day scholars using this approach.

BEGINNINGS AND DEVELOPMENT OF OT THEOLOGY 2 3

pubiished.80 For a whole generation Ewald’s conservative in-fluence held back German scholarship from accepting themodernistic reconstruction of Israelite religion as popularizedby Wellhausen.81 Ewald’s students Ferdinand Hitzig (1807-1875)82 and August Dillmann (1823-1894)83 wrote OT theolo-gies which were posthumously published. Ewald defended asystematic treatment of his subject; Hitzig wrote a “history ofideas”; and Dillmarm a “history of revelation” with salvation-historical emphases.

The year 1878 marks the beginning of the triumph of the“history-of-religions” (Religionsgeschichte) approach over OTtheology with the publication of the Prolegomena to the His-tory ofIsrael by Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918). OT (and Bib-lical) theology was from now on deeply influenced by (1) thelate date assigned to the P document in Pentateuchal criticismas advanced by K. H. Graf and A. Kuenen and popularized byWellhausen,a“ and (2) the new total picture of the develop-ment of the history of Israelite religion as reconstructed onthe basis of the new dates assigned to OT materials by theGrafKuenen-Wellhausen school. Another distinguishing fea-ture of the “history-of-religions” school is the historical-genetic method of evolutionary development. The new schoolis in accord with the intellectual temper of that age “whichhad been taught by Hegel and Darwin to regard the principlesof evolution as the magic key to unlock all the secrets ofhistory.“s5 The title of OT theology is used (misused) for the

80. H. Ewald, Die Lehm der Bibel von Gott oder Theologie des Alten undNeuen Bundes (Leipzig, 1871-76). Vols. I-III were translated under the titleOld and New Testament Theology (Edinburgh, 1888).

81. So according to J. Wellhausen as referred to by A. Bertholet,“H. Ewald,” Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (Bibingen, 1901), II,767.

82. E Hitzig, brlesungen tiber Biblische Theologie und messianischeWeissagungen des AT, ed. J. J. Kneucher (Karlsruhe, 1880); cf. Dentan, Preface,p. 49; Kraus, Biblische Theologie, pp. 107-110.

83. A. Dillmann, Handbuch der alttestamentlichen Theologie, ed.R. Kittel (Leipzig, 1895); cf. Kraus, Biblische Theologie, pp. 110-113.

84. R. J. Thompson, Moses and the Law in a Century of Criticism SinceGraf (Leiden, 1970), pp. 53-101.

85. Dentan, Preface, p. 51.


publications in this the new era by August Kayser (1886),86Hermann Schultz (five editions from 1869-1896),87 C. Piepen-bring (1886),ss A. B. Davidson (1904),89 and Bernhard Stade(1905),90 whereas Rudolf Smend (1893) was more exact.g1

For over four decades OT theology was eclipsed by Re-ligionsgeschichte. g2 The full-fledged historicism of the “his-tory-of-religions” approach had led to the final destruction ofthe unity of the OT, which was reduced to a collection ofmaterials from detached periods and consisted simply ofIsraelite reflections of as many different pagan religions. Thisapproach had a particularly destructive influence both on OTtheology and on the understanding of the OT in every otheraspect. In addition “the essential inner coherence of the Oldand New Testaments was reduced, so to speak, to a thin threadof historical connection and causal sequence between the two,with the result that an external causality-not even suscep-tible in every case of secure demonstration-was substitutedfor a homogeneity that was real because it rested on the similarcontent of their experience of life.“93 It took a “real act ofcourage” to break “the tyranny of historicism in OT studies”94and to rediscover and revive OT theology.

D. The Revival of OT Theology. In the decades following

86. A. Kayser, Die Theologie des AT in ihmr Geschichtlichen Entwickhmgdazgestellt, ed. E. Reuss (Strassburg, 1886). The latest edition was retitledGeschichte der israelitischen Religion (Strassburg, 1903).

87. H. Schultz, Alttestamentliche Theologie (Braunschweig, 1869). In the2nd ed. of 1878 Schultz adopted Wellhausen’s theory. A translation was madeof the 4th ed. of 1889 under the title OT Theology (Edinburgh, 1892). The 5thGerman ed. appeared in Giittingen, 1896.

88. C. Piepenbring, Theologie de l’tlncien Testament (Paris, 1886). TheEnglish translation appeared in New York, 1893.

89. A. B. Davidson, The Theology of the OT ed. S. D. E Salmond (Edin-burgh, 1904).

90. B. Stade, Biblische Theologie des AT (Bibingen, 1905).91. R. Smend, Lehrbuch der alttestamentlichen Religionsgeschichte

(Freiburg-Leipzig, 1893).92. Not until 1922 with the publication of E. Kijnig, Theologie des AT

kritisch und vergleichend dargestellt (Stuttgart, 1922), did an OT theologyappear “which attempted to take its title seriously” (Eichrodt, OTT, I, 31).

93. Eichrodt, On I, 30.94. Eichrodt, OT?: I, 31.


World War I several factors, aside from the changing Zeitgeist,brought about a revival of OT (and NT) theology. R. C. Dentansuggests three major factors that contributed to the “renaissanceof OT theology”: (1) a general loss of faith in evolutionarynaturalism; (2) a reaction against the conviction that historicaltruth can be attained by pure scientific “objectivity” or that suchobjectivity is indeed attainable; and (3) the trend of a return tothe idea of revelation in dialectical (neo-orthodox) theology.95The historicism of liberalisms was found to be totally inade-quate and a new approach needed to be developed.

In 1922 came the first clear sign of reviving interest in OTtheology with the publication of E. Kiinig’s ?Iheologie des ATHe had a high opinion of the reliability of the OT, rejected theWellhausenistic evolution of OT religion, and called for anexact use of the grammatical-historical method of interpreta-tion. His OT theology is, however, a “hybrid” in that he com-bines a history of the development of Israelite religion with ahistory of particular theological factors of OT faith.g7

The 1920s are characterized by a rousing debate over thenature of OT theology.98 In 1923 W. Staerksg raised the questionof the relationship between Religionsgeschichte and philosophyof religion and Biblical theology. Two years later appeared thesignificant essay by C. Steuernagel,lOs who pleaded for theautonomy of OT theology as a purely historical subject, sup-

95. Dentan, Preface, p. 61.96. See especially C. T. Craig, “Biblical Theology and the Rise of His-

toricism,” JBL, 62 (1943). 281-294; M. K;ihler, “Biblical Theology,” The NewSchaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious knowledge (repr. Grand Rapids,1952). II, 183ff.; C. R. North, “OT Theology and the History of Hebrew Re-ligion,” SE 2 (1949), 113-126.

97. Kiinig, Theologie des AT, p. 1.98. For surveys, see N. W. Porteous, “OT Theology,” in The OT and

Modern Study, ed. H. H. Rowley (London, 1951), pp. 316-324; Emil G. Krael-ing, The OT Since the Reformation (New York, 1955), pp. 268-284; Dentan,Preface, pp. 62-71; and for details below, Chapter II.

99. W. Staerk, “Religionsgeschichte und Religionsphilosophie in ihrerBedeutung fiir die biblische Theologie,” ZTK, 4 (1923), 289-300.

100. C. Steuernagel, ‘Alttestamentliche Theologie und alttestamentlicheReligionsgeschichte,” in Vom AT Festschnftfir K Marti, ed. K. Budde (BZAW,41; Giessen, 1925), pp. 266-273.


plementary to the history of Israel’s religion. In 19260. Eissfeldtlol entered the discussion by asserting that OT the-ology is a nonhistorical discipline, determined by the faithstance of the theologian, and is thus subjective, whereas thestudy of the religion of Israel is historical and objective. Thisdichotomy between knowledge and faith, objectivity and sub-jectivity, that which is relative and that which is normative, wasdirectly challenged in an essay by W. Eichrodt,ls2 who keepsboth feet planted in history and finds Eissfeldt’s suggestionsunsatisfactory. Eichrodt points out that Gabler’s heritage of OTtheology as a historical discipline is essentially sound and thatthere is no such thing as a history of the religion of Israel whichis entirely free from presuppositions. A subjective element ispresent in every science because the process of selection andorganization cannot be purely objective.

The “golden age” of OT theology began in the 1930s andcontinues to the present. Significant volumes on OT theologywere published by E. Sellin (1933) and L. Kijhler (1936), bothof which follow the God-Man-Salvation arrangement.103W. Eichrodt (1933-39) pioneered the cross-section methodbased on a unifying principle,lo4 and W. Vischer (1934) pub-lished the first volume of his The Wtness of the OT to Christ.105An important contribution to the subject was made byH. Wheeler Robinson.106 Among major contributions to OTtheology are those by W. and H. Moeller (1938), I? Heinisch(1940), 0. Procksch (1949), 0. J. Baab (1949); G. E. Wright

101.0. Eissfeldt, “Israelitisch-jiidische Religionsgeschichte und alttesta-mentliche Theologie,” ZAW 44 (1926), 1-12.

102. W. Eichrodt, “Hat die alttestamentliche Theologie noch selbstandigeBedeutung innerhalb der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft?” ZAw 47 (1929),83-91.

103. E. Sellin, Theologie des AT (Leipzig, 1933); L. Kohler, Theologie desAT (Bibingen, 1936), trans. as OT Theology (London, 1957).

104. W. Eichrodt, Theologie des AT, 3 ~01s. (Leipzig, 1933, 1935, 1939),trans. as Theology of the OT, 2 ~01s. (Philadelphia, 1961, 1967).

105. W. Vischer, Das Christuszeugnis des AT (Zurich, 1934), trans. Lon-don, 1949.

106. H. W. Robinson, Inspiration and Revelation in the OT (Oxford,1946); idem, Record and Revelation (London, 1938), pp. 303-348.


(1952, 1970), Th. C. Vriezen (1949), F? van Imschoot (1954),G. von Rad (1957, 1960), J. B. Payne (1962), A. Deissler (1972),G. Fohrer (1972), W. Zimmerli (1972), and T. L. McKenzie(1974).107 Works with the title “Biblical theology” were pub-lished by M. Burrows (1946), G. Vos (1948), J. Blenkinsopp(1968), and C. R. Lehman (1971).1a8 E. J. Young (1959) andJ. N. Schofield (1964) came out with short studies on OTmethodology from conservative and moderate perspectivesrespectively.109 B. S. Childs provides a valuable survey of the“Biblical Theology Movement” in America which, althoughderivative of European Biblical theology, is primarily an out-growth of the polarity of the battle over the Bible in theFundamentalist-Modernist controversy fought from 1910 tothe 1930s in the USA.llO

There is no consensus on any of the major problems of OT(and Biblical) theology. Fundamental issues are widely de-bated among scholars of various backgrounds and schools ofthought. The historical survey of this chapter highlights majorroots of the basic issues in the current debate on OT theologywith which the following chapters (II-V) deal.

107. I? Heinisch, Theologie des AT [Bonn, 1940), trans. Theology of theOT (Collegeville, MN, 1950); 0. Procksch, Theologie des AT (Giitersloh, 1949);0. J. Baab, fie neology offhe OT (Nashville, 1949); G. E. Wright, God WhoActs: Biblical Theology as Recital (SBT, l/S; London, 1952); idem, The OT andTheology (New York, 1970); Th. C. Vriezen, Hoofdhjnen der Theologie van hetOude Testament (Wageningen, 1954), 2nd rev. Eng. ed. An Outline of OTTheology (Newton, MA, 1970); E van Imschoot, Theologie de 1’AT (Tournai,1943), trans. neology of the OT (New York, 1965); J. B. Payne, The Theologyof the Older Testament (Grand Rapids, 1962); A. Deissler, Die Grundbofschaftdes AT (Freiburg i. Br., 1972); G. Fohrer, Theologische Grundstrukturen des AT(Berlin, 1972); W. Zimmerli, Grundriss der aktestamentlichen Theologie (Stutt-gart, 1972); J. L. McKenzie, A Theology of the OT (New York, 1974).

108. M. Burrows, An Outline of Biblical Theology (Philadelphia, 1946);G. Vos, Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids, 1948); J. Blenkinsopp, A Sketchbookof Biblical Theology (London, 1968); C. R. Lehman, Biblical Theology I: OT(Scottdale, PA, 1971).

109. E. J. Young, The Study of OT Theology Today (London, 1959); J. N.Schofield, Introducing OT Theology (Philadelphia, 1964).

110. B. S. Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis (Philadelphia, 1970), pp.13-87.

II. The Question of Methodology

The issues related to the question of methodology in OTtheology are complex. In the years following World War I adebate regarding an aspect of the question of methodologywas renewed and has remained with us to the present. Itrelates to the question of whether OT theology is purely de-scriptive and historical or whether it is a normative and theo-logical enterprise. In this chapter we will address this questionfirst. Then we will attempt to classify various ways in whichscholars have conceived OT theology in order to analyzemajor current methodological approaches and the questionsthey raise.

The Descriptive and/or Normative Tasks

The descriptive task in the scholarly tradition of Gabler-Wrede-Stendahll has its proponents to the present day in

1. Johann Philipp Gabler’s inaugural lecture “Oratio de iusto discriminetheologiae biblicae et dogmaticae, regundisque recte utriusque finibus,”delivered at the University of Altdorf, March 30, 1787, marked the beginningof a new phase in the study of Biblical theology through its claim that “Biblicaltheology is historical in character [e genere historico] in that it sets forth whatsacred writers thought about divine matters . . .” (in Gableti Opuscula Aca-demica II [1831], pp. 183f.). Cf. R. Smend, “J. Ph. Gablers Begrtindung derbiblischen Theologie,” EvT 22 (1962) 345ff. Wilhelm Wrede’s programmaticessay i&r Aufgabe und Methode der sogenannten Neutestamentlischen Theo-

28

THE QUESTION OF METHODOLOGY 29

E. Jacob,2 G. E. Wright,3 I? Wernberg-Mdller,4 and I? S. Wat-son,5 among others. The Biblical theologian is said to have toplace his attention on describing “what the text meant” andnot “what it means,” to use Stendahl’s distinctions.6 The prog-ress of Biblical theology is dependent upon a rigorous appli-cation of this distinction,7 which is to be understood as a“wedge”8 that separates once and for all the descriptive ap-

Zogie (Gottingen, 1897), p. 8, emphasizes again the “strictly historicalcharacter” of NT (Biblical) Theology. The penetrating and influential articleof Krister Stendahl, “Biblical Theology, Contemporary, ” in IDB, I, 418-432,followed by his paper “Method in the Study of Biblical Theology,” in 7%eBiblein Modern Scholarship, ed. J. Philip Hyatt (Nashville, 1965), pp. 196-209,presents arguments for the rigorous distinction between “what it meant” and“what it means.”

2. E. Jacob, Theology of the OT (London, 1958), p. 31, states that OTtheology is a “strictly historical subject.” In a somewhat more cautious tonehe maintained recently that no method may claim absolute priority overanother, because a theology is always “unterwegs” (Grundfmgen ahtestament-Zither Theologie, p. 17) and for doing OT theology there are various waysopen (p. 16). At the same time he maintains that a theology of the OT hasthe task of presenting or expressing what is present in the OT itself (p. 14).

3. G. E. Wright, God Who Acts, pp. 37f., expresses at length that hebelieves Biblical theology to be a “historical discipline” which is best de-scribed as a “theology of recital, in which man confesses his faith by recitingthe formative events of his history as the redemptive handiwork of God. Thelater Wright, who now feels closer to Eichrodt than von Rad, holds on to thenotion that Biblical theology is a “descriptive discipline.” See G. E. Wright,“Biblical Archaeology Today,” in New Directions in Biblical Archaeology, ed.D. N. Freedman and J. C. Greenfield (New York, 1969), p. 159.

4. P Wernberg-Moller, “Is There an OT Theology?” Hibberf Journal, 59(1960), 29, argues for a “descriptive, disinterested theology.”

5. P S. Watson, “The Nature and Function of Biblical Theology,” ExpTim,73 (1962), ZOO: “As a scientific discipline, Biblical theology has a purelydescriptive task. . . .” See the critique by H. Cunliffe-Jones, “The ‘Truth’ ofthe Bible,” ExpTim, 73 (1962), 287.

6. Stendahl, IDB, I, 419.7. Here Stendahl follows the position of the contributors from Uppsala

University of the volume The Root of the Vine: Essays in Biblical Theology,ed. A. Fridrichsen (London, 1953), who agree that Biblical theology is pri-marily a historical and descriptive task to be distinguished from later norma-tive reflections.

8. Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis, p. 79, objects to the dichotomyreaffirmed by Stendahl on the basis that it drives a “wedge between theBiblical and theological disciplines” which the Biblical Theology Movementsought to remove.


preach to the Bible from the normative approach often as-signed to the systematic theologian, whose task it is to trans-late its meaning for the present. The latter task, “what itmeans” for today, is not to be considered a proper part of thestrictly historical descriptive method.

The distinction between what a text meant and what a textmeans is at the core of the most fundamental problem of OTtheology, because “what it meant” is not simply discovering themeaning of the Biblical text within its own canonical Biblicalcontext; it is historical reconstruction. By historical reconstruc-tion the modern scholar means a presentation of the thought-world of the OT (or NT) as reconstructed on the basis of itssocio-cultural surroundings. Historical reconstruction, or“what the text meant,” understands the Bible as conditioned byits time and by its surroundings. The Bible’s time and place, theBible’s socio-cultural environment, its social setting, and itscultural environment among other nations and religions be-come the virtually exclusive key to its meaning. In this sensethe Bible is interpreted in the same way as any other ancientdocument. Just as “what it meant” is historical reconstructiondone with the principles of the historical-critical method, so“what it means” is theological interpretation. ‘Theological inter-pretation is the translation of the historically reconstructed textinto the situation of the modern world. Normally this meansthat the key to theological interpretation is the modern world-view of the individual interpreter. Regardless of what the inter-preter’s worldview is and what kind of philosophical systemmay be adopted for theological interpretation or “what itmeans,” the theological and interpretative approach of “what itmeans” is doing theology and is conceived of as normative forfaith and life.

It is evident that the distinction of modern times between“what it meant” and “what it means,” i.e., theological inter-pretation which is normative, is problematical in both its dis-tinction and its task. D. H. Kelsey, e.g., has stated succinctlythat there are several ways in which both “what it meant” and“what it means” can be related to each other with varying


results.9 First, it may be decided that the descriptive approachthat seeks to determine “what it meant” by whatever methodsof inquiry is considered to be identical with “what it means.”Second, it may be decided that “what it meant” contains prop-ositions, ideas, etc. that are to be decoded and translated sys-tematically and explicated and that this is “what it means,” eventhough those explications may never have occurred to theoriginal authors and might have been rejected by them. Third,it may be decided that “what it meant” is an archaic way ofspeaking dependent upon its own culture and time that needsto be redescribed in contemporary ways of speaking of the samephenomena, and that this redescription is “what it means.”“This assumes that the theologian has access to the phenomenaindependent of scripture and ‘what it meant,’ so that he cancheck the archaic description and have a basis for his own”10Fourth, it may be decided that “what it meant” refers to the wayin which early Christians used Biblical texts and that “what itmeans” is simply the way these are used by modern Christians.In this case there is a genetic relationship. Kelsey notes, “Noneof these decisions can itself be either validated or invalidatedby exegetical study of the text, for what is at issue is preciselyhow exegetical study is related to doing theology.“11 If this is thecase, then one must ask on what grounds one makes a theolog-ical judgment in favor of one over the other of these or otherways of relating “what it meant” to “what it means.”

Criticisms of the distinction between “what it meant” and“what it means,” i.e., between historical reconstruction or whatis historical, descriptive, and objective, and theological inter-pretation or what is theological and normative, have beenadvanced from several quarters. B. S. Childslz objects to thehistorical and descriptive approach on account of its limiting

9. D. H. Kelsey, 77re Uses of Scripture in Recent Theology (Philadelphia,1975), pp. 202f. n. 18.

10. Ibid., p. 203.11. Ibid.12. Childs, “Interpretation in Faith: The Theological Responsibility of

an OT Commentary,” Interp, 18 (1964), 432-449.


nature. The historical and descriptive task cannot be seen as aneutral stage leading to later genuine theological interpreta-tion.13 The text, says Childs, is “a witness beyond itself to thedivine purpose of God.“14 There must be “the movement fromthe level of the witness to the reality itself.“‘5 Stendahl concedesthat the descriptive task is “able to describe scriptural texts asaiming beyond themselves . . . in their intention and theirfunction through the ages. . . .“*6 But Stendahl denies that theexplication of this reality is a part of the task of the Biblicaltheologian. Childs, however, insists that “what the text ‘meant’is determined in large measure by its relation to the one towhom it is directed.” He argues that “when seen from thecontext of the canon both the question of what the text meantand what it means are inseparably linked and both belong tothe task of the interpretation of the Bible as Scripture.“17A. Dulles makes a similar point when he speaks of the “uneas-iness at the radical separation . . . between what the Bible meantand what it means”18 Whereas Stendahl gives normative valueto the task of what the Bible means, i.e., theological interpreta-tion, Dulles maintains that normative value must be given alsoto what the Bible meant, and we may add what it meant in itsown canonical context in speaking with Childs. If this is thecase, then Stendahl’s dichotomy is seriously impaired because“the possibility of an ‘objective’ or non-committed descriptiveapproach, and thus . . . one of the most attractive features ofStendahl’s position” is done away with.la Similar points aremade by R. A. E MacKenzie, C. Spicq, and R. de Vaux.20

13. Ibid., p. 437.14. Ibid., p. 440.15. Ibid., p. 444.16. Stendahl, The Bible in Modern Scholarship, p. 263 n. 13.17. Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis, p. 141.18. A. Dulles, “Response to Krister Stendahl’s ‘Method in the Study of

Biblical Theology,“’ in The Bible in Modern Scholarship, p. 216.19. Ibid., pp. 216f. Stendahl, of course, maintains that there is no ‘Ab-

solute objectivity” (IDB, I, 422; The Bible in Modern Scholarship, p. 202) tobe had. He is completely right in emphasizing that the relativity of humanobjectivity does not give us an excuse to “excel in bias,” but neither, we insist,does it give us the possibility of doing purely descriptive work.

20. R. A. E MacKenzie, “The Concept of Biblical Theology,” TToday 4


Perhaps we need to be reminded by 0. Eissfeldt that “wecannot penetrate on the basis of historical grounds to thenature of OT religion.“z* How can the nonnormative descrip-tive approach with its limiting historical emphasis lead us tothe totality of the theological reality contained in the text? Bydefinition and presupposition the descriptive and historicalapproach is limited to such an extent that the total theologicalreality of the text does not come fully to expression. Does OTtheology need to be restricted to be nothing more than a “firstchapter” of historical theology? If Biblical theology also hasnormative value on the basis of the recognition that what theBible meant is normative in itself, then would it not be ex-pected that Biblical theology must engage in more than justto describe what the Biblical texts meant? Biblical theology isnot aiming to take the place of or be in competition withsystematic theology as the latter expresses itself in the formof system building based on its own categories either with orwithout the aid of philosophy. Is it not possible for Biblicaltheology to have normative value on the basis of its recogni-tion that it is done within the Biblical context first of all andthat the Bible is normative in itself? Can Biblical theologydraw its very principles of content and organization from theBiblical documents rather than ecclesiastical documents orscholastic and modern philosophy? Would it not be one ofthe tasks of Biblical theology to come to grips with the natureof the Biblical texts as aiming beyond themselves, as ontologi-

(1956), 13X-135, esp. 134: “Coldly scientific-m the sense of rationalistic-objectivity is quite incapable of even perceiving, let alone exploiting, thereligious values of Scripture. There must be first the commitment, the rec-ognition of faith of the divine origin and authority of the book, then thebeliever can properly and profitably apply all the most conscientious tech-niques of the subordinate sciences, without in the least infringing on theirdue autonomy or being disloyal to the scientific ideal.” C. Spicq as quotedin J. Harvey, “The New Diachronic Biblical Theology of the OT (1960-1970),”B773, 1 (1971), 18f. Cf. R. de Vaux, “Method in the Study of Early HebrewHistory,” in The Bible in Modern Scholarship, pp. 15-17; idem, “Is It Possibleto Write a ‘Theology of the OT’?,” in The Bible and the Ancient Near East(Garden City, NY, 1971), pp. 49-62.

21. 0. Eissfeldt, “Israelitisch-jtidische Religionsgeschichte und alttesta-mentliche Theologie,” ZAW 44 (1926), l-12.


cal and theological in their intention and function throughthe ages, without defining in advance the nature of Biblicalreality?

In the latter part of the 1980s another development hasraised serious questions regarding the meant/means, descrip-tive/prescriptive, nonnormative/normative dichotomy of theGabler-Wrede-Stendahl approach in which OT (and Biblical)theology is perceived as a purely historical enterprise. Indeed,this new development is so disturbing to key figures who wishto maintain OT (and Biblical) theology on that foundation thatsome of them speak of a bleak future for these undertakingsof OT theology on a purely descriptive basis.z2

Some have raised the question whether Jewish scholarsshould not also engage in OT theology or the theology of theHebrew Bible. Why have Jewish scholars not been involvedin writing a “theology of the Hebrew Bible”? In 1986 the issuecame to the fore with an essay on the matter of a Jewish OTtheology by M. Tsevat in the journal Horizons in Biblical 7Ihe-ology Tsevat argues against the notion of a “Jewish biblical[OT] theology.“23 He insists that the “theology of the OldTestament” is to be practiced from an “objective” point of viewas “that branch of study of the literature which has the OldTestament as its subject: it is philology of the Old Testa-ment.“24 In his view the OT, or the Hebrew Bible, is literatureand not theology. He suggests that literature is a category ofphilological study, but theology is a category of study whichis embedded for the Jew in Jewish tradition and for the Chris-tian in Christian tradition. These two traditions or contextual-izations are so pervasive that the theological enterprise doneby Jews will Judaize OT theology and that done by Christianswill Christianize it.

Pure “objectivity” is not to be had! This seems to be Bern-’

22. See the discussion on James Barr below, section H. “Recent ‘CriticalOT Theology Methods.”

23. M. Tsevat, “Theology of the OT-A Jewish View,” HBT, 8/2 (1986),50.

24. Ibid., p. 48.


hard W. Anderson’s response to Tsevat when he suggests that“our epistemological starting point should not become ourepistemological norm; otherwise the hermeneutical circlewould become a confining solipsism in which we are shut upin our own world and talk only to our own circle.“25 Andersoncomes from the point of view of H.-G. Gadamer and PaulRicoeur. Gadamer is particularly known for the concept of thehermeneutical melting of the horizons of the past and thepresent to complete the hermeneutical circle.26 Following theGadamer-Ricoeur hermeneutic, Anderson insists, “Obviously,the meaning of a text cannot be sharply separated from ourappropriation, and it may be falsified by our appropriation.“27Evidently there are two differing epistemologies at work andtwo differing hermeneutics. But the issue coming to the fore-front here is whether OT theology is indeed an enterprisewhere scholars of differing religious persuasions can partici-pate in such a way that their religious traditions, i.e., theirpresent horizons, do not enter into the interpretationalprocess.

In contrast to Tsevat, other voices in Jewish scholarshiptoday see things from a different though not entirely unrelatedperspective. M. H. Goshen-Gottstein argues that the time ishere for Jewish scholarship to engage in what he calls a

25. Bernhard W. Anderson, “Response to Matitahu Tsevat ‘Theology ofthe OT-A Jewish View,“’ HB?: 8/2 (1986), 55.

26. Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (New York, 1975; 2nd ed.1989). See the penetrating analysis of Gadamer’s hermeneutic by Joel C.Weinsheimer, Gadamer’s Hermeneutics: A Reading of Truth and Method (NewHaven/London, 1985), with rich bibliography. Of importance for the her-meneutical enterprise as a whole is the application of Gadamer’s hermeneuticby Anthony Thiselton, The Two Horizons: NTHenneneutics and PhilosophicalDescription (Grand Rapids, 1980). Another approach to hermeneutics is basedon the massive work of Emilio Betti. Most of his publications are not availablein English, but see his “Hermeneutics as the General Science of the Geistes-wissenschaften,” in Contemporary Hermeneutics: Hermeneutics as Method,Philosophy, and Critique, ed. Josef Bleicher (London, 1980) pp. 51-94. E. D.Hirsch, validity in Interpretation (New Haven, 1967); idem, The Aims ofInterpretation (Chicago, 1976), is in line with Betti as an opponent of Gadamerand his followers.

27. Anderson, “Response,” p. 55.


“Jewish Biblical Theology” or “Tam&h Theology.“2s In hisview this enterprise is a separate discipline but complemen-tary to that of the one called “history of ancient Israel.” “Ta-nakh Theology must be created as a parallel field of study”zgto that of OT theology in which Christians are engaged. Hemaintains that it cannot be a purely historical enterprise-OT theology is not a purely historical enterprise either-because such a theology would be a “nontheology.” He clearlyseparates himself from the Gabler-Wrede-Stendahl approachof a “descriptive” undertaking. Goshen-Gottstein shares theconviction also held by others, both Jews and Christians, thatscholars cannot isolate themselves from the communities offaith in which they function and cannot be outside theirreligious traditions that shape in some form or another theirtheologizing.30 As will be seen later in this chapter, more andmore scholars are departing from the notion of a “what itmeant” or purely descriptive enterprise for OT theology.31

A third Jewish scholar entering this newest debate is Jon D.Levenson.32 He argues with vigor that Jewish scholars are notinterested in “Biblical theology,” because it assumes an “ex-

28. M. H. Goshen-Gottstein, “Tanakh Theology: The Religion of the OTand the Place of Jewish Biblical Theology,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essaysin Honor of Fmnk Moore Cross, ed. I? D. Miller, I? D. Hanson, and S. D.McBride (Philadelphia, 19871, pp. 617-644.

29. Ibid., p. 626.36. This is the point of view held by, among others, R. E. Clements, John

Goldingay, and particularly Brevard Childs.31. See also the essay and sensitive analysis of Ben C. Ollenburger,

“What Krister Stendahl ‘Meant’-A Normative Critique of ‘Descriptive Bib-lical Theology,“’ HBT, 8/l (1986), 61-98.

32. See Jon D. Levenson, “Why Jews Are Not Interested in BiblicalTheology,” in Jewish Perspectives on Ancient lsmel, ed. J. Neusner, B. A.Levine, and E. S. Frerichs (Philadelphia, 19871, pp. 281-307. Levenson is avery perceptive and analytical scholar; see also particularly idem, “The He-brew Bible, the OT, and Historical Criticism,” in I?re Future of Biblical Studies:The Hebrew Scriptures, ed. R. E. Friedman and H. G. M. Williamson (Atlanta,1987), pp. 19-60; idem, “The Eighth Principle of Judaism and the LiterarySimultaneity of Scripture,” JR, 68 (1988). 205-225; idem, Sinai and Zion: AnEntty Into the Jewish Bible (Minneapolis, 1985); idem, Creation and the Per-sistence of Evil: The Jewish Dmma of Omnipotence (San Francisco, 1988).


istential commitment” that “will necessarily include othersources of truth (the Talmud, the New Testament, and soon).“33 Due to the fact that “Biblical’ is not a neutral termsince it means different things to Jews (namely, the Tam&h)and to Christians (namely, the one Bible of both Testaments),one can pursue either a “Jewish biblical theology” or a “Chris-tian biblical theology.” He has shown in his article how OTtheology in the last hundred years has been colored by shadesof anti-Semitism, and until recently was non-Catholic andnon-Jewish (and one may add non-evangelical).34 He main-tains that “the effort to construct a systematic, harmonioustheological statement out of the unsystematic and polydoxmaterials in the Hebrew Bible fits Christianity better thanJudaism because systematic theology in general is more prom-inent and more at home in the church than in the yeshivahand the synagogue.“35 He feels that a “contexualized” Jewishor Christian “biblical theology” will be able to serve the re-spective Jewish or Christian religious communities.as

These voices of Jewish scholarship make it clear that intheir minds no “Biblical theology” of a purely descriptive typeis to be had. No wonder that those who insist on such anenterprise feel that we are moving away from OT theology soperceived. As a result some see a diminished role and analtered future for such an undertaking.37

It can be stated without hesitation that there is today arenewed attempt on the part of Biblical theologians to viewthe enterprise of Biblical theology as more than merely de-scriptive and nonnormative. This will emerge more clearly as

33. Levenson, “Why Jews Are Not Interested in Biblical Theology,”p. 286.

34. Ibid., pp. 287-293.35. Ibid., p. 296.36. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, pp. 224-225.37. So, e.g., James Barr, ‘Are We Moving Toward an OT Theology, or

Away Rom It?,” paper read at the annual meeting of the Society of BiblicalLiterature in Anaheim CA, November 1989, with an abstract published inAbstracts: American Academy of Religion, Society of Biblical Literature, ed.J. B. Wiggins and D. J. Lull (Atlanta, 1989), p. 20.


we survey significant approaches to OT theology in the lastfive decades with an emphasis on the period since the 1970s.

Methodology in OT Theology

In a comprehensive review of five decades of literature on OTtheology E. Wiirthwein concluded his penetrating analysis ina sobering sentence: “We are today further apart regarding anagreement on the context and method of OT theology thanwe were fifty years ago.“38 Despite this lack of agreement, in

38. E. Wtirthwein, “Zur Theologie des AT,” TRu, 36 (1971), 188. Amongthe useful earlier surveys are the ones by C. T. Fi-itsch, “New Trends in OTTheology,” BibSac, 103 (1946), 293-305; N. Porteous, “OT Theology,” in fieOT and Modern Study, ed. H. H. Rowley (London, 1951), pp. 311-345; R. C.Dentan, Pmface to OT Theology (2nd ed.; New York, 1963); E M. Braun, “LaThbologie Biblique,” Revue thomiste, 61 (1953), 221-253; E. G. Kraeling, fieOT since the Reformation (New York, 1955), pp. 265-284; E. J. Young, fieStudy of OT Theology Today (New York, 1959); R. Martin-Achard, “Les voiesde la thbologie de I’AT,” RSPT, 3 (1959), 217-226; A. M. Barnett, “Trends inOT Theology,” Cfl 6 (1960), 91-101; 0. Betz, “Biblical Theology, History of,”IDB, I, 432-437; E Festorazzi, “Rassegna di teologia dell AT,” Revista biblica,10 (1962), 297-316; 12 (1964), 27-48; L. Ramlot, “Une decade de theologiebiblique,” Revue thomiste, 64 (1964), 65-96; 65 (1965). 95-135; R. E. Clements,“The Problem of OT Theology,” London Quarterly and Holborn Review (Jan.,1965), 11-17; P. Benoit, “E%gi%e et thbologie biblique,” Ex.$g&e et fieologie(Paris, 1968), III, 1-13; J. Harvey, “The New Diachronic Biblical Theology ofthe OT (1960-1970),” BTB, 1 (1971), 5-29; W. H. Schmidt, “‘Theologie desAT’ vor und nach Gerhard von Rad,” Verkiindigung und Forschung, 17 (1972),l-25: W. Zimmerli, “Erwlgungen zur Gestalt einer alttestamentlichen Theo-logic,” XZ, 98 (1973), 81-98; E. Osswald, “Theologie des AT- eine bleibendeAufgabe alttestamentlicher Wissenschaft,” 7ZZ, 99 (1974), 641-658; C. Wes-termann, “Zu zwei Theologien des AT,” Ev’l: 34 (1974), 96-112; J. Goldingay,“The Study of OT Theology: Its Aims and Purpose,” TpBul, 26 (1975), 34-52;R. E. Clements, “Recent Developments in OT Theology,” Epworth Review, 3(1976), 99-107; R. L. Hicks, “G. Ernest Wright and OT Theology,” AnglicanTheologicalReview, 58 (1976), 158-178; J. J. Scullion, “Recent OT Theologies:Three Contributions,“Ausfznfian BiblicalReview, 24 (1976), 6-17; J. J. Burden,“Methods of OT Theology: Past, Present and Future,” ‘Iheologia Evangelica,10 (1977), 14-33; E. Jacob, “De la theologie de 1’AT a la thbologie biblique,”RHPR, 57 (1977), 513-518; E. A. Martens, “Tackling OT Theology,” m, 20(1977), 123-132; H. Graf Reventlow, “Basic Problems in OT Theology,” JSOT,11 (1979), 2-22; A. H. J. Gunneweg, “‘Theologie’ des AT oder ‘Biblische Theo-logic’?,” .1~. T&gem&s. Aufslitze und Beitriige zur Hermeneutik des AT. Fest-


the years following this assessment more than a dozen differ-ent volumes were published on OT theology alone.39 Thisoutput is unmatched in any decade in the roughly 180 yearsof the existence of the discipline of OT theology. It will nowbe our task to survey and to classify the various OT theologies,even though it is at times difficult to do this adequately.

A. me Dogmatic-Didactic Method. The traditional methodof organizing OT theology is the approach borrowed fromdogmatic (or systematic) theology and its division (for its loci)of God-Man-Salvation or Theology-Anthropology-Soteriology.Georg Lorenz Bauer employed this scheme in 1796 for thefirst n7eologv of the OT ever published under this name.40

The strongest case for the dogmatic-didactic method inrecent years comes from R. C. Dentan, whose monographs arean eloquent defense for what most have discarded as an out-

schrift fiir Ernst Wiirthwein zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. A. H. J. Gunneweg and0. Kaiser (Giittingen, 1979), pp. 38-46; J. J. Collins, “The ‘Historical Character’of the OT in Recent Biblical Theology,” CBQ, 41 (1979), 185-204; W. Brueg-gemann, “A Convergence in Recent OT Theologies,” JSOT 18 (1980), 2-18;G. E Hasel, ‘A Decade of OT Theology: Retrospect and Prospect,” ZAM! 93(1981), 165-184.

39. G. E. Wright, The OT and Theology (New York, 1970); Th.C. Vriezen, An Outline of OT TheoZogy (2nd ed.; Newton, MA, 1976);M. Garcia Cordero, Teologia de la Biblia, I: Antiguo Testament0 (Madrid,1970); C. K. Lehman, Biblical Theology I: OT (Scottdale, PA, 1971);A. Deissler, Die Grundbotschaft des AT (Freiburg i. Br., 1972); G. Fohrer,TheoZogische Grundstrukturen des AT (Berlin/New York, 1972); W. Zim-merli, Grundriss der alttestamentlichen Theologie (Stuttgart, 1972), trans.OT Theology in Outline (Atlanta, 1978); J. L. McKenzie, A Theology of theOT (Garden City, NY, 1974); D. E Hinson, fieology of the OT (London,1976); S. Terrien, The Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology(San Francisco, 1978); W. C. Kaiser, Toward an OT Theology (Grand Rapids,1978); R. E. Clements, 0TTheology:A flesh Approach (Atlanta, 1978); E. A.Martens, God’s Design: A Focus on OT Theology (Grand Rapids, 1981);C. Westermann, Theologie des AT in Grundztigen (Gottingen, 1978), trans.Elements of OT Theology (Atlanta, 1982).

40. Georg L. Bauer (1755-1806) was the first to publish a separate Theo-logie des AT oder Abriss der religiiisen Begriffe der alten Hebriier (Leipzig,1796), which was followed by a four-volume Biblische Theologie des NT(Leipzig, 1800-1802). See also Kraus, Biblische Theologie, pp. 87-91; 0. Merk,Bibhsche Theologie des NTin ihrer Anfangszeit (Marburg, 1972), pp. 143-202;W. Dyrness, Themes in OT Theology (Downers Grove, IL, 1979).


moded model.41 Dentan’s The Knowledge of God in AncientZsrael (1968) attempts to treat only the first of the three majorloci, namely, “the Old Testament doctrine of God,” because“all other aspects of the normative religion of ancient Israel‘have their center in a distinctive doctrine of God (theo-logy).“42 Dentan affirms that “the most basic affirmation ofOld Testament religion is that Yahweh is the God of Israel,and Israel is the people of Yahweh.“43 It is surprising that this“covenant formula,” which is conceived by J. Wellhausen,B. Duhm, B. Stade, M. Noth, and most recently by R. Smend44as the center of the OT45 and by Smend as the “materialframework for organizing the [OT] materials”4s into an OTtheology, remains unrecognized as providing the frameworkfor the structure of an OT theology. It is possible that Dentanwas unwilling to move in this direction because of his ear-lier commitment to the Theology-Anthropology-Soteriologyscheme.

A glance at Dentan’s structure for his OT “doctrine” of Godreveals that the first two chapters on “The Mystery of Israel”and “The Nature of Israel’s Knowledge” are preliminary to thebook. Chapters 3, 4, and 9 treat God in the past, present, andfuture respectively, whereas the chapters on “The Being ofGod” and “The Character of God” (Chapters 6 and 7) are the

41. See his Preface to OT Theology and The knowledge of God in AncientIsmel (New York, 1968). See also R. de Vaux, “Is It Possible to Write a‘Theology of the OT’?,” in The Bible and the Ancient Near East (New York,1971), pp. 6lf.

42. Dentan, The Knowledge of God in Ancient Ismel, p. vii.43. Ibid.44. R. Smend, Die Bundesfonnel (Zurich, 1963).45. On the issue of the center or centers of the OT, see G. I? Hasel, “The

Problem of the Center in the OT Theology Debate,” Z4w 86 (1974), 65-82;below, Chapter Iv; W. Zimmerli, “Zum Problem der ‘Mitte des AT,“’ EvT, 35(1975), 97-118; S. Wagner, “ ‘Biblische Theologien’ und ‘Biblische Theolo-gie,’ ” TLZ, 103 (1978), 791-793; on the issue of the center or centers for theNT, see Hasel, NTTheology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (Grand Rapids,1978), pp. 140-176 with literature; S. Schulz, Die Mitte der Schnft (Stuttgart,1976), pp. 403-433; 0. Betz, “The Problem of Variety and Unity in the NT,”HBT 2 (1980) 3-14.

46. R. Smend, Die Mitte des AT (Zurich, 1970), p. 55.

THE QUESTION OF METHODOLOGY 4 1

heart of Dentan’s exposition. Chapters 5 and 8 are digressionsunder the titles “God and the Natural World” and “The Namesof God,” which Dentan suggests are “not central to the mainargument of the book.“47 This structure reveals the difficultyof organizing the OT materials under traditional rubrics. Itwould be interesting to see how Dentan would handle OTanthropology, with which he has not yet dealt, and then tocompare it with H. W. Wolff’s timely and rich contribution inthis field.4s

In contrast to Dentan, whose monograph is limited to the“doctrine of God,” two other OT theologies reflect in full-fledged form the Theology-Anthropology-Soteriology scheme.The detailed study of the Spanish scholar M. Garcia Cordero4gbegins with the OT concept of God, followed by anthropology.Soteriology is discussed in Parts II and III, where he elucidatesthe hopes of the OT with emphasis on Messianic expectations,the kingdom of God, eschatology, and man’s religious andmoral obligations with personal salvation.

The OT theology by D. E Hinson is much more modest inlength.50 The Theology-Anthropology-Soteriology scheme isevident from the titles and the sequence of his work. Upon apreliminary section follow eight chapters with the headings:God, Other Spiritual Beings, Man, Fall, Salvation, New Life,The Ultimate Goal, and The OT in the NT. Hinson has adidactic aim. He conceives the nature of OT theology as God’srevelation “about Himself, about mankind, and about theworld which is contained in the books of the Old Testa-ment.“51 He does not explain how the material structure cangrasp the totality of that revelation. Hinson is concerned toshow that the OT is the preparation for the NT; Dentan, on

47. Dentan, fie knowledge of God in Ancient Ismel, p. x.48. H. W. Wolff, Anthropologic des AT (Munich, 1973), trans. Antim-

pologv of the OT (London, 1974).49. Garcia Cordero, Teologia de la Biblia, I: Antigua Testamento, pp.

17-732.56. D. E H&on, Theology of the 07:51. Ibid., p. xi.


the other hand, “deliberately tried to keep any specificallyChristian point of view out of the chapters.“52

The dogmatic-didactic method has certain advantages.However, among the problems is the deductive nature of theenterprise. The OT cannot speak for itself, because outsideinterests seem to dominate. The OT patterns of thought arenot structured along the lines of the Theology-Anthropology-Soteriology scheme. Did any particular individual or group inancient Israel think about God, man, and salvation in just theway a dogmatic method depicts the “doctrines” of the OT?Does the dogmatic approach not ultimately present a theologyrooted in the OT rather than the OT’s own theology? Is itreally able to present the theology that the OT (or the Bible)contains? The center of the OT does not even become an issueor bear much weight in the dogmatic approach because thecenter is predetermined by the scheme; it is Theology-Anthro-pology-Soteriology. These and other issues will concern OTtheologians in our period and probably for some time to come.

B. The Genetic-Progressive Method. In regard to the scope,function, and structure of OT theology this is another time-honored method which has been employed in a variety ofways.53 Chester K. Lehman defines the “method of biblicaltheology” as one “determined in the main by the principle ofhistoric progression.“54 This is understood as “the unfolding ofGods revelation as the Bible presents it.“55 The historic progres-sion of the unfolding revelation is evidenced in “periods or erasof divine revelation [which] are determined in strict agreementwith the lines of cleavage drawn by revelation itself.” Morespecifically this means that divine revelation centers in theseveral covenants made by God with Noah, Abraham, Moses,

52. Dentan, The Knowledge of God in Ancient Ismel, p. xi.53. Historical antecedents to the revival of the “genetic method” in the

decade under discussion are found in the last century, particularly by thegreatest name in OT theology in the second half of the 19th century, G. EOehler, Prolegomena zur Theologie des AT (Stuttgart, 1845); Theologie des AT(Ttibingen, 1873), trans. OT TheoJogV (New York, 1883).

54. C. K. Lehman, Biblical Theology I: 01: p. 38.55. Ibid., p. 7.

THE QUESTION OF METHODOLOGY

and through Christ, all of which manifest the “organic being” ofthe Bible and Scripture’s “own anatomy.“56 Here the influenceof several scholars is at work57 and also the developmentalapproach of “progressive revelation.“58

Lehman divides his work into three major parts, which followthe division of the Hebrew canon. Part I treats God’s revelationin creation and fall, from the fall through Abraham, and onthrough the patriarchs. This is followed by revelation and wor-ship in the time of Moses, a section on Moses’ final expositionof the law, and a topical section on sin and salvation in thePentateuch. Part II deals with God’s revelation through the(Former and Latter) Prophets with subsections on the rise, place,and nature of prophetism, the theology of the Former Prophets,Gods revelation through the prophets of the Assyrian period,the theology of Isa. 49-66, and the theology of the prophets ofthe Chaldean (Neo-Babylonian), Exilic, and Persian periods. PartIII discusses the theology of the Hagiographa in the sequence ofPsalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Job.

This approach provides many valuable and important ob-servations. The tripartite canonical structure, however, standsin seemingly irreconcilable tension with the genetic methodof “historic progression,” because the Hebrew canon does notgive evidence of a consistent or even intended historical pro-gression. Accordingly it cannot be said that the method-ological proposal of Lehman found successful realization inhis presentation of OT theology. His presentation reveals amixture of tripartite canonical structure with a topical and/orbook-by-book approach59 without any consistent historical

56. Ibid., p. 38.57. Lehman (pp. 7f., 26f., 35-38) makes a particular point regarding his

indebtedness to his teacher Geerhardus Vos (Biblical ‘Jbeologv: Old and NewTestaments [Grand Rapids, 1948]), to W. Eichrodt’s TOT and to G. E Oehler.

58. Lehman, Biblical Theology I: 01: p. 12, where it is noted in M. S.Augsburger’s introduction that Lehman sees the unfolding revelation withthe NT at a higher level than the OT.

59. The topical approach is evident in presenting such topics as “theGod of Israel,” election, covenant, sin, etc. as manifested in various books ofvarious periods. The book-by-book approach is carried through for Isa. 46-66


progression. Some books remain undated, totally outside a“historic progression” and genetically unrelated to the unfold-ing revelation.60 One cannot help but conclude that this modelof a genetic approach has not been very successful.

Without attempting to be unjust in any way, it appears thatthe well-known scholar R. E. Clements of Cambridge Univer-sity belongs in a general sense to those who follow a broadlygenetic method. Clements’s tome, OT Theology: A Fresh Ap-proach (1978), is a kind of preface or prolegomenon to OTtheology and of great importance for the question of method-ology.

Clements divides his monograph into eight chapters. Chap-ters 1 and 2 are a survey (at times not in great depth) withvarious questions on methodology and related issues. Chap-ters 3-6 deal with what Clements regards as the central themesin the OT. The theme of “The God of Israel” is treated undersuch aspects of the being, names, presence, and uniquenessof God; a historical-genetic flow of development is cautiouslyhighlighted. This is manifested also in the chapter “The OTas Promise,” in which the importance of this theme is shownwithout making it central to the OT (pace W. C. Kaiser).61

In contrast to many OT theologies, Clements correctly re-fuses to follow a center-oriented approach to OT theology withan organizing principle. For him the unity of the OT is not asingle theme, center, organizing principle, or formula, but “itis the nature and being of God himself which establishes aunity in the Old Testament. . . .“62 We have argued for thesame direction independently.63

The chapter “The People of God” discusses the relationship

(ibid., pp. 304-328), Psalms (pp. 409-441), Proverbs (pp. 442-445), Ecclesiastes(pp. 446-450), Canticles (pp. 451-453), and Job (pp. 454-458).

60. The Hagiographa are treated in a separate part without any indicationof a “historical progression,” Are they ahistorical or is there an insur-mountable flaw in the structure of Lehman’s OT theology?

61. See below, pp. 52-54.62. Clements, OT Theology p. 23.63. Hasel, “The Problem of the Center,” pp. 65-82; and below, pp. 139-

171.


of people and nation, the theology of election, and the the-ology of covenant. The chapter “The OT as Law” traces themeaning of tdr& as applicable to the Pentateuch and its usein the prophetic writings and compares it to that of “law.”

In contrast to other approaches to OT theology, Clementsnot only emphasizes the significance of the canon but argueswith force that the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures, i.e., theOT, in itself and by itself is the authoritative norm for OTtheology. “There is a real connection between the ideas of‘canon’ and ‘theology’, for it is the status of these writings asa canon of sacred scripture that marks them out as containinga word of God that is still believed to be authoritative.“64 Ina manner reflecting concerns similar to those of Yale Univer-sity scholar B. S. Childs, we are reminded that “it is preciselythe concept of canon that raises questions about the authorityof the Old Testament, and its ability to present us with atheology which can still be meaningful in the twentieth cen-tury.“65 Clements thus refuses to conceive of OT theology asa purely descriptive exercise. The reason for rejecting such a“rigidly historicising approach” rests in the position that “theOld Testament does present us with a revelation of the eternalGod.“66

The insistence upon the canon of the OT as the boundaryof OT theology is central in the contemporary discussion. Theperennial question is one of dealing with the totality of writ-ings in the canon of the OT. A typical test for the adequacyof a methodology for OT theology is the matter of integratingthe complete OT in all its variety and richness. Virtually allOT theologies have had difficulties in dealing with the wis-dom writings (Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiastes, Canticles). Typicalexamples are the approaches of G. von Rad, W. Zimmerli, andC. Westermann, who consider the wisdom literature of the OTin terms of Israel’s answer to God. But hardly will one find

64. Clements, OT Theolo& p. 15.65. Ibid., p. 19.66. Ibid.


such disregard of this part of the OT canon as is evident inClements’s approach-he disregards it completely. Thismeans in effect that the canon of Clements consists of but theLaw and the Prophets, with a sprinkling of the Psalms.67 Evenif this book grew out of a series of lectures,68 it is a frustratinglacuna to have wisdom literature so completely neglected.

The “fresh approach” of Clements also includes a newlook at “the Christian study of the Old Testament,” whichinvolves “very full and careful attention . . . to the manner,method and presuppositions of the interpretation of the OldTestament in the New.“69 Among other things this involvesa rather welcome examination of “those key themes by whichthe unity is set out in the Bible itself.“70 The significance ofthis “fresh approach” can be more fully appreciated if wekeep in mind that one recent OT theology was written “as ifthe New Testament did not exist”71 and argued that therelationship between the Testaments is not a major problemin OT theology. That it is such a problem need no longer bedenied, as the studies of J. A. Sanders and J. Blenkinsopphave amply demonstrated.72 In sharp contrast to historical-critical approaches to OT theology this “fresh approach”affirms a wider starting-point for the discipline of OT the-ology. OT theology is not to be conceived of as a historicaland descriptive enterprise (so the Gabler-Wrede-Stendahlschool), but “instead of treating is as a subordinate branchof the historical criticism of the Old Testament, it should beregarded properly as a branch of theology.“73 Does this mean

67. See now the rich volume by H.-J. Kraus, Theologie der Psalmen(Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1979), trans. Theologvof the Psalms (Minneapolis, 1986).

68. “Talking Points from Books,” EYxpTim, 90 (19791, 194.69. Clements, OT Theology p. 185.76. Ibid., p. 186.71. McKenzie, A Theology of the 01: p. 319.72. J. A. Sanders, Torah and Canon (2nd ed.; Philadelpia, 1974); idem,

“Hermeneutics,” IDB Supplement (1976), pp. 402-407; J. Blenklnsopp, Proph-ecy and Canon. A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins (Notre Dame,1977).

73. Clements, OT Theology, p. 191.


that it is a branch in the field of systematic theology whereB. S. Childs would place Biblical theology, or does it meanthat it remains part of the field of OT studies, but with apost-critical, post-historicist methodology? We shall returnto this question later.

C. The Cross-Section Method. A major pioneer in OT the-ology and its methodology in this century is W. Eichrodt. Inthe 1930s he developed the cross-section approach.74 He wasable to achieve a cross-section through the world of OTthought by making the covenant the center of the OT. In thisstep he not only anticipated the revival of interest in thecovenant under the impetus of G. Mendenhall,75 which ispresently in a heated debate, 7s but he stimulated others tofollow him by producing their own cross-section theologies

74. W. Eichrodt, TOI: trans. from Theologie des AT (3 ~01s.; 5th ed.;Stuttgart, 1960, 1964). See also Dentan, Preface to OT Theology; pp. 66-68;Spriggs, Two OT Theologies (SBT, 2/30; Naperville, IL, 1974), pp. 11-33, whosees “Eichrodt’s basic conception of the purpose and function of an OTTheology . more acceptable than von Rad’s” (p. 97).

75. G. Mendenhall, Low and Covenant in Ismel and the Ancient NearEast (Pittsburgh, 1955); idem, “Covenant,” IDB, I (1962), 714-723; idem, TheTenth Genemtion (Baltimore, 1973).

76. See, e.g., L. Perlitt, Die Bundestheologie im AT (WMANT, 36; Neukir-then Vluyn, 1969), and E. Kutsch, tirheissung und Gesetz (BZAW, 131; Berlin,1972), for a late origin of the idea of covenant; the latter also that the OTknows no idea of covenant but only one of “obligation” (Verpflichtung). Amongthose strongly opposed to this new trend are D. J. McCarthy, Treaty andCovenant (2nd ed.; Rome, 1978); H. Lubsczyk, “Der Bund als Gemeinschaftmit Gott. Erwagungen zur Diskussion tiber den Begriff ‘berit’ im AT,” in Dienstder Vermittlung, ed. W. Ernst, K. Feiereis, and E Hoffmann (Leipzig, 1977),pp. 61-96; M. Weinfield, “bWh,” TDO?: II (1975), 253-279. For a generalsurvey of selected issues see D. J. McCarthy, OT Covenant (London, 1972).Eichrodt defended his covenant concept in “Covenant and Law: Thoughts onRecent Discussion,” Interp, 20 (1966), 302-321. He found support for makingthe Sinai covenant the center of the OT in Wright (fie OT and Theology pp.57-62), but is criticized for neglecting altogether the Davidic covenant by E C.Prussner (“The Covenant of David and the Problem of Unity in OT Theology,”Tmnsitions in Biblical Scholarship, ed. J. C. Rylaarsdam [Chicago, 19681, pp.17-44) and the Davidic and Abrahamic covenants by D. G. Spriggs (Two OTTheologies, pp. 25-33). A clearly negative reaction to the use of the covenantas an organizing principle comes from N. K. Gottwald, “W. Eichrodt, Theologyof the OT,” in Contemporary OT Theologians, pp. 23-62, esp. 29-31.


of the OT. He has found a recent defender in D. G. Spriggs,77who produced a detailed comparative study of Eichrodt’s andvon Rad’s OT theologies.

As early as 1929 Eichrodt called for a radical reorientationin methodology78 in order to move beyond the impasse intowhich the application of a God-Man-Salvation principle hadled the development of OT theology from Georg L. Bauer(1755-1806) to Emil Kautzsch (1911), under the influence ofhistoricism.79

Eichrodt insists correctly that in every science there is asubjective element. Historians have come to take seriouslythat there is inevitably a subjective element in all historicalresearch worthy of the name. The positivist errs when for thesake of objectivity he attempts to rid the individual sciencesof philosophy. One cannot be a true historian if one ignoresthe philosophy of history. The historian will always be guidedin his work by a principle of selection, which is certainly asubjective enterprise, and by a goal which gives perspectiveto his work, a goal which is equally subjective. Eichrodt ad-mits the truth of the contention that history is unable to makean ultimate pronouncement on the truth or falsity of anything,on its validity or invalidity. He claims that while the OTtheologian makes an existential judgment which, in part atleast, determines the subjective element to be found in hisaccount of OT religion, there is no weight to the charge thatOT theology is unscientific in character.

77. Spriggs, Two OT Theologies, p. 101: “On the whole, I consider thatEichrodt’s conception of an OT Theology is well able to withstand the shock-waves from von Rad’s onslaught. His understanding of covenant certainlyneeds to be modified and I would not consider it the only organizing concept.As Eichrodt understands it-the God-Man relationship as revealed in theOT- it is both comprehensive enough and central enough to be useful.”

78. W. Eichrodt, “Hat die alttestamentliche Theologie noch selbstandigeBedeutung innerhalb der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft?” ZAW 47 (1929),83-91. See Porteous, “OT Theology,” pp. 317-324; 0. Eissfeldt, “Israelitisch-jtidische Religionsgeschichte und alttestamentliche Theologie,” ZAw 44(1926), 1-12, repr. in 0. Eissfeldt, Kleine Schriften, I (Ttibingen, 1962), 105-114.

79. Cf. Dentan, Preface, pp. 26-57; Kraus, Biblische Theologie, pp. 88-125.


Eichrodt’s theology remains firmly historical and descrip-tive. He maintains that the OT theologian has to be guided bya principle of selection and a principle of congeniality. Thegreat systematic task consists of making a cross-sectionthrough the historical process, laying bare the inner structureof religion. His aim is “to understand the realm of OT beliefin its structural unity . . . [and] to illuminate its profoundestmeaning.“80 Under the conviction that the “tyranny of histori-cism”81 must be broken, he explains that “the irruption of theKingship of God into this world and its establishment here”is “that which binds together indivisibly the two realms ofthe Old and New Testaments.” But in addition to this histori-cal movement from the OT to the NT “there is a current lifeflowing in reverse direction from the New Testament to theOld.“82 The principle of selection in Eichrodt’s theology turnsout to be the covenant concept, and the goal which providesperspective is found in the NT.

It is to Eichrodt’s credit that he broke once and for all withthe traditional God-Man-Salvation arrangement, taken overfrom dogmatics time and again by Biblical theologians83 Hisprocedure for treating the realm of OT thought attempts tohave “the historical principle operating side by side with thesystematic in a complementary role.“e4 The systematic prin-ciple Eichrodt finds in the covenant concept, which becomesthe overriding and unifying category in his OT theology.85 Outof the combination of the historical principle and the covenantprinciple grow Eichrodt’s three major categories representingthe basic structure of his magnum opus, namely God and the

80. TO’I I, 3181. Ibid.82. Ibid., p. 26.83. The OT theologies of E. Konig (Stuttgart, 1923), E. Sellin (Leipzig,

19331. and L. Kahler (Tubingen, 1935) were still to a larger or smaller degreedependent on the Theolog&Anthropology-Soteriology arrangement of sys-tematic theology that became dominant in the post-Gabler period in Biblicaltheology.

84. m1: I, 17ff.85. Ibid., p. 32.


people, God and the world, and God and man.86 His system-atic cross-section treatment is so executed as to exhibit thedevelopment of thought and institution within his system.The cross-section method, with Eichrodt’s use of the covenantconcept as the means whereby unity is achieved, is to someextent artificial, since the OT is less amenable to systemati-zation than Eichrodt suggests.

Eichrodt’s cross-section method has its serious problems.Within his presentation one finds explications of “historicaldevelopments”87 in which the religio-historical view comesthrough but hardly ever from the perspective of the NT. Thisis especially surprising since he claims that there is a “two-way relationship between the Old and New Testaments,” andcontends that without this relationship “we do not find acorrect definition of the problem of OT theology.“88 In thisrespect his work is hardly an improvement over the earlierhistory-of-religions approaches. Furthermore, Eichrodt’s sys-tematic principle, i.e., the covenant concept, attempts to en-close within its grasp the diversified thoughts of the OT. It ishere that the problem of the cross-section method lies. Is thecovenant concept, or Vriezen’s community concept, or anyother single concept, sufficiently comprehensive to includewithin it all variety of OT thoughts? In more general terms,is the OT a world of thought or belief that can be systematizedin such a way ?89 Or does one lose the comprehensive per-

86. H. Schultz, Alttestamentliche Tbeologie. Die Offenbarungsreligion inihrer vorchtistlichen Entwickhrngsstufe (5th ed.; Leipzig, 1896), had alreadyanticipated Eichrodt in the systematic arrangement of the second part of hisOT theology. Eichrodt (TOT I, 33 n. 1) confesses that he owes his three majorcategories to the outline by Otto Procksch, Theologie des AT (Gtitersloh, 1956),pp. 420-713.

87. For example, the history of the covenant concept and the history ofthe prophetic movement in 707: I, 36ff., 369ff. The phrase “historical devel-opment” is used by Eichrodt himself, TOT I, 32.

88. TOT, I, 26.89. Inasmuch as Wright, The OTand Theology p. 62, has recently given

support to the centrality of the covenant concept for the recitation of the actsof God and thus to Eichrodt’s methodology, one needs to call to mind alsohis earlier strictures wth regard to the adequacy of the covenant concept.


spective of history with the compartmentalization of singlethematic perspectives under a single common denominator?Is it not a basic inadequacy of the cross-section method as atool of inquiry that it remains stretched in the tension ofhistorical summary and theological pointer?

Th. C. Vriezen, the well-known Dutch scholar, follows largelythe cross-section method and combines with it a squarely con-fessional interest.90 Methodologically Vriezen is indebted toboth 0. Eissfeldt and W. Eichrodt.a* He attempts to reconcilesome aspects of the divergent approaches that emerged in thedebate between Eissfeldt and Eichrodt in the 1920s. The basicposition of Vriezen that “both as to its object and its method OldTestament theology is and must be a Christian theologicalscience”g2 is indebted to Eissfeldt. But in the structural cross-section Vriezen follows the path of Eichrodt by insisting that hehas “attempted to establish the ‘communion’ . . . as the center ofall exposition.“g3 In Vriezen’s view this is “the best starting-pointfor a Biblical theology of the Old Testament, . . . [which must] bearranged with this aspect in view. “94 It should not be overlookedthat this is a reaction against the diachronic traditio-historicalapproach pioneered by G. von Rad that insisted that there is nocenter and thus no unity. 95 Vriezen, as others after him, hasreworked his whole OT theology in order to “stress more firmlythe unity of the whole”96 with the aid of the communion con-

Wright stated in Studia biblica et Semitica, p. 377: “It is improbable, however,that any one single theme is sufficiently comprehensive to include within itall variety.” Cf. the critique of the cipher/symbol of covenant by Norman K.Gottwald, “W. Eichrodt, Theology of the OT,” in Contempomry OT Theolo-gians, pp. 53-56.

90. Vriezen, Outline of OT Theoloa pp. 143-156.91. See above, n. 78.92. Vriezen, Outline of OT Theology p. 147.93. Ibid., p. 8. Vriezen, p. 351, maintains that the communion concept

is preferred above that of the covenant because “we cannot be certain thatthe communion between God and the people was considered from the outsetas a covenantal communion.”

94. Ibid., p. 175.95. On: I, 115-121: II, 412,415.96. Vriezen, Outline of OT Theoloa p. 8.


cept. The stimulation for this was von Rad’s rejection of aconceptual unity of the OT. Let us raise a question at this point.Is there a single theme or concept that can serve as the center ofthe OT in order to unify the diversified materials and to organizethem into a coherent structure of OT theology?

A clearly affirmative answer with detailed argumentationis provided by W. C. Kaiser, Jr. He believes that there is “aninductively derived theme, key, or organizing pattern whichthe successive writers of the Old Testament overtly recognizedand consciously supplemented in the progressive revelationof the Old Testament text.“97 He argues that “the true and onlycentre or Mitte of an Old Testament theology”98 is “the Promisetheme.“99 Kaiser’s 1978 monograph Toward an OT Theology isbuilt upon these affirmations and argues strenuously for theexistence of a “center” in the form of a “unifying but develop-ing concept.“*00 He suggests that it is known in the OT “undera constellation of such words as promise, oath, blessing, rest,seed” and “such formulas as the tripartite saying: ‘I will beyour God, you shall be my people, and I will dwell in themidst of you’ or the redemptive self-assertion formula . . . ‘Iam the Lord your God who brought you up out of the land ofEgypt.’ It could also be seen as a divine plan in history whichpromised a universal blessing. . . .“I01 Kaiser conceives this“inner center or plan to which each writer consciously con-tributed” now as the “divine blessing-promise theme.“102 For

97. W. C. Kaiser, “The Centre of OT Theology: The Promise,” Themelios,10 (1974), 3. See also his earlier preparatory studies such as “The Eschato-logical Hermeneutics of ‘Evangelicalism’: Promise Theology,” JETS, 13 (1979)91-99; “The Old Promise and the New Covenant: Jeremiah 31:31-34,” JETS,15 (1972). 11-23; “The Promise Theme and the Theology of Rest,” BibSac,130 (1973), 135-150; “The Davidic Promise and the Inclusion of the Gentiles(Amos 9:9-15 and Acts 15:13-18): A Test Passage for Theological Systems,”JETS, 20 (19771, 97-111; “Wisdom Theology and the Centre of OT Theology,”EvQ, 50 (1978), 132-146.

98. Kaiser, “The Centre of OT Theology,” p. 9.99. Ibid., p. 3.100. Kaiser, Toward an OT Theology, p. 23.101. Ibid., pp. 12f.102. Ibid., p. 11.


Kaiser the “blessing-promise” theme is a rather broad centerof the Bible. It includes, as his exposition indicates, also whatis normally understood as covenant and covenant theology.“Promise” is thus conceived to be a very broad if not all-inclusive umbrella under which all “variety of viewpoints”and “longitudinal themes” can be “harmonized.“~a3

What does all of this mean when it comes to the structureof an OT theology? Kaiser affirms that in the promise of God“Scripture presents its own key of organization.“lo4 The shapeof the organization follows a longitudinal sequence of histori-cal eras. To each of these historical eras is assigned a chapter,eleven in all, which unfolds the growing “blessing-promise”theme under such catchwords as provisions, people, place,king, life, day, servant, renewal, kingdom, and triumph of thepromise.

It seems that Kaiser has achieved another cross-sectionthrough the OT based on a broadly defined “blessing-promise”concept. This is another valiant effort to indicate the unity ofthe OT by means of a given theme. He is the first to use the“blessing-promise” theme as the key for an organization of OTtheology. This is one way to do OT theology. But does itachieve what is claimed, namely, that the “blessing-promise”theme unites all of the OT, not to speak of the NT?

Kaiser himself was forced to admit that this basic themeinvolves a “principle of selectivity” and notes that certain piecesof OT information that bear on “religious history or practice”ought “to be relegated to other parts of the body of theology.“105Among them are cultic and institutional studies. On what basisis the decision reached that some parts or aspects of the OT are“to be relegated to other parts of the body of theology”? If it is nota subjective decision, then it must be a decision reached on thebasis of the supposedly all-inclusive center of the OT. If this isthe case, how defensible is the claim that the “divine blessing-

103. Ibid., p. 65.164. Ibid., p. 69.105. Ibid., p. 15.

5 4 OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

promise theme” includes all “variety of viewpoints” and “longi-tudinal themes”? For example, the creation theology of the OThas hardly any room in Kaiser’s OT theology. H. H. S&midargues forcefully that creation theology, i.e., “faith that God hascreated and maintains the world with its manifold orders, is nota marginal theme of biblical theology, but its basic theme assuch.“l’Ja Here the issue is not only whether Kaiser, Schmid, orsomeone else is correct as to the basic theme of Biblical theology,but the choice of one theme has inevitably led to making otherthemes marginal. The cult is certainly not marginal in the OT,but in Kaiser’s OT theology it has not even a marginal status. Itdoes not fit into the supposedly all-inclusive center of “blessing-promise.” Even Kaiser’s treatment of the covenant is unusual. Itis often noted that Eichrodt’s covenant center is one-sidedly builton the Sinaitic covenant. Kaiser seems to build one-sidedly onthe Abrahamic-Davidic “promise,” which is contrasted with theSinaitic covenant107 because the latter is obligatory instead ofpromissory. The exposition of the theology of the prophets isagain oriented toward promise, salvation, and hope, at the ex-pense of woe, doom, and judgment. In what “other parts of thebody of theology,” if not in OT theology, shall these and othermatters of OT thought receive attention? Kaiser’s cross-sectionby means of the “blessing-promise” theme or center does notseem to bring together the richness of OT themes and materials.

A comparison between Vriezen and Kaiser is difficult.There are several common elements. Both conceive of theirsubject as preparatory for the NT. The themes or centerschosen by both are to be valid for the whole OT and the NTas well. All in all Vriezen’s approach turns out to be broaderthan Kaiser’s. In both cases the respective centers inevitablylead to a principle of selectivity. The cross-section approachhas this weakness as do seemingly all “centered” approaches.Is unity really found in one center of the OT? Or is the unity

106. Schmid, “Schopfung, Gerechtigkeit und Hell. ‘Schopfungstheologle’als Gesamthorizant biblischer Theologle,” ZTK, 70 (1973), 15.

107. Kaiser, Toward an OTTheology, pp. 63, 233ff.


of the OT not found in the one God Yahweh whose variegatedself-revelation in words and acts, in creation and re-creation,in judgment and salvation cannot be pressed into a singletheme or a combination of themes? Does not God, manifesthimself in the variety and richness of all parts of the OT, allof which contribute to a knowledge of the divine purpose forIsrael, the nations, and the universe?

The first OT theology ever published by an Italian appearedin 1981 from the pen of Anselmo Mattioli.108 Although we listit in this section, his structure is a mixture of dogmatic andcross-section approaches. Part I is entitled “God and Man asCreator and Creature.” It contains several chapters that in-clude such topics as a genetic development of monotheismfrom patriarchal to later Israelite religion. Part II carries thetitle “The Origin and Religious Role of Evil.” Part III is desig-nated “The Most Important Saving Gifts of Yahweh,” withchapters on “Israel as a Covenant People”;109 “Expectation ofan Israel with Authentic Spirituality for the Future,” whichincludes Messianic expectations of the Or; “Reception of Rev-elation among the Prophets”; “Holy Writings as Inspired Wit-ness of Revelation,” including the development of the OTcanon, which in Mattioli’s view was still concluded at Jamnia(ca. A.D. 90), a view that has to be abandoned;lla and “Expec-

108. Anselmo Mattioli, Dio e l’uomo nella Bibbia d’lsmele. Theologiadell’Antico Testament0 (Casale Monferrato, 1891).

109. Mattioli is silent on the recent debate about an early covenant inancient Israel. A kind of neo-Wellhausian position is taken up by L. Perlitt,Die Bundestheologie im AT (Wh&%NT, 36; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969), andE. Kutsch, Verheissung und Gesetz (BZAW, 131; Berlin/New York, 1973), whoargue for the exilic or postexilic origin of the OT covenant idea. See E. W.Nicholson’s review of this entire development and debate in God and HisPeople: Covenant and Theology in the OT (Oxford, 1986). Various recentstudies argue forcefully for an early covenant in the OT, including those ofDennis J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (2nd ed., AnBib, 2lA; Rome, 1963),and various articles; Thomas E. McComiskey, The Covenant of Promise: ATheology of OT Covenants (Grand Rapids, 1985), and others.

110. Mattioli continues to build on the outdated concept of the fixingof the OT canon at the “council of Jamnia.” He seems to be unaware of thedefinitive studies of, e.g., I! Schafer in Judaica, 31 (1975), 54-64, 116-124;Jack I! Lewis, JBR, 32 (1964), 125-34; S. Z. Leiman, The Canonization of the


tations of Future Life after Death,” a chapter that includesdiscussion of life after death in the Apocrypha and at Qumran.This tome contains a concluding part entitled “The TrueYahweh Cult: Toward Liberation and Peace,” with chapters onthe Hebrew cult, on conversion, and on forgiveness.

Mattioli attempts to “present the major religious ideaswhich the Bible contains. “111 His OT theology is organized onthe basis of these “ideas,” ideas concerning God and man,which in the words of H. Graf Reventlow manifest the work-ing of a “dogmatic principle.“ll2 While this seems to be sus-tained for the organization of the major parts of his volume,the individual chapters follow roughly a cross-section ap-proach, since the various topics and themes selected from theOT follow more or less the support found for them throughoutthe OT. The chapter on the future life gives the impression ofa genetic presentation. Thus it seems that Mattioli employs amixture of approaches to accomplish his purposes.

John Goldingay had written several articles and a book onOT theology before his revised dissertation appeared as 7%eo-logical Diversity and the Authority of the OT.113 In his first bookon OT interpretation he had made the point that one shouldnot opt for an either/or approach as regards the descriptiveover against the normative method for OT theology.114 He optsfor the position that “God’s relationship with mankind

H+rew Scriptures: 7&e Talmudic and Midmshic Evidence (Hamden, CT, 1976);S. Talmon, “The OT Text,” in Qummn and the History of the Biblical Text, ed.E M. Cross and S. Talmon (Cambridge, MA, 1975), pp. l-41. Each of thesestudies demonstrates in its own way that the OT canon was completed longbefore the NT came into existence.

111. Mattioli, p. 14.112. H. Graf Reventlow, “Zur Theologie des AT,” Ii%, 52 (1987), 237.113. John Goldingay, “The Study of OT Theology: Its Aim and Purpose,”

TpBul, 26 (1975), 34-52; idem, “The Chronicler as Theologian,” BTB, 5 (1975),99-126; idem, “The ‘Salvation History’ Perspective and the ‘Wisdom’ Perspec-tive Within the Context of Biblical Theology,” EvQ, 51 (1979), 194- 207; idem,“Diversity and Unity in OT Theology,” VT: 34 (1984), 153-168; idem, Ap-proaches to OT Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL, 1981); idem, TheologicalDiversity and the Authority of the OT (Grand Rapids, 1987).

114. Goldingay, Approaches, pp. 17-24.


(specifically with Israel) is the midpoint [center?] of OT faithrom which all other aspects of it should be examined.“115 Buthe warns immediately that “the search for the right struc-ture of an OT theology, and for its right central concept fromwhich to view OT faith as a whole, has been fruitless (or over-fruitful!). “116 He opts for “a multiplicity of approaches [which]will lead to a multiplicity of insights.“117 He also notes that“the challenge to contemporary OT interpretation . . . arisesfrom the twofold nature of these scriptures,“118 namely, theword of God in the human word. “It is so to use the techniquesappropriate to the study of the human words, that the divineword which they constitute may speak to us who live on thisside of the coming of Christ.“119

Goldingay’s recent monograph on the Theological Diversityand Authority of the OT complements his earlier publicationsand deals penetratingly and perceptively with the hotly de-bated issues whether the diversity of the OT120 is of suchoverwhelming weight that the scholar and theologian willsimply give up and say no to OT theology.121 It is also analternative to the attempts of James Barr, particularly his re-cent book on the authority of Scripture.122 Goldingay devotesthe central part of his book to his own synthesis of the prob-

115. Ibid., p. 26.116. Ibid., p. 27.117. Ibid., p. 29.118. Ibid., p. 155.119. Ibid.120. See the monograph of Paul D. Hanson, The Diversity of Scripture:

A Theological Interpretation (OBT, 11; Philadelphia, 19821, in which thediversity of Scripture as posited by historical-critical research is seen in termsof dynamic polarities, such as “pragmatic/visionary” and “form/reform,” aspart of the interface of tradition and community.

121. This is exactly what R. N. Whybray, “OT Theology-A NonexistentBeast?,” in Scripture: Meaning and Method. Essays Presented to Anthony TyrellHanson for His Seventieth Birthday, ed. B. I? Thompson (Pickering, North York-shire, 1987), pp. 168-180, has again suggested. He does not believe that themajor attempts to unify the OT by means of a single theme, statement, or thelike- whether dogmatic, philosophical, or psychological-will suffice.

122. James Barr, Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism (Philadel-phia, 1983).


lems facing OT theology and provides his own approach inthis part, which is entitled “A Unifying or Constructive Ap-proach.“*23 Here he raises the question whether it is possibleto “formulate one Old Testament theology.“124 This questionhas unique relevance, because voices from various quarterspoint out that the discipline is called OT theology but the OThas various and variegated theologies.12s

Goldingay’s proposals for OT theology are influenced byEichrodt’s cross-section approach and by directions beyondthose of Eichrodt as outlined or hinted at by D. G. Spriggs.126He even goes beyond Spriggs and suggests in his recent re-flections that there is no single center on which a theology ofthe OT can be based. “Many starting points, structures, andfoci can illuminate the landscape of the OT; a multiplicity ofapproaches will lead to a multiplicity of insights.“127 ThusGoldingay opts for a “constructive approach.” “OT theologyis inevitably not merely a reconstructive task but a construc-tive one.“128 This means that “it is actually unrealistic tomaintain that OT theology should be a purely descriptivediscipline; it inevitably involves the contemporary explicationof the biblical material.“12s Goldingay here departs from those

123. Goldingay, theological Diversity pp. 167-239.124. Ibid., pp. 167-199.125. See, e.g., Siegfried Wagner, “ ‘Biblische Theologien’ und ‘Biblische

Theologie,’ ” Izz, 103 (1978), 785-798; S. E. McEvenue, “The OT, Scriptureor Theology?,” Interp, 35 (1981), 229-241; Rolf Rendtorff, “Zur Bedeutung desKanons fiir eine Theologie des AT,” in “Wenn nichtjetzt, warm dann?‘Aufshtze$ir Hans-Joachim Kmus zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. H.-G. Geyer et al. (Neukir-then-Vluyn, 1983), pp. 3-11. Particularly important are also the essays byManfred Oeming, “Unitas Scripturae? Eine Problemskizze,” pp. 48-70; UlrichMauser, “Eis Theos und Monos Theos in Biblischer Theologie,“pp. 71-87; andPeter Stuhhnacher, “Biblische Theologie als Weg der Erkenntnis Gottes. ZumBuch von Horst Seebass: Der Gott der ganzen Bibel,” pp. 91-114, in Einheitund Welfalt Biblischer Theologie, ed. I. Baldermann et al. (Jahrbuch ftir Bib-lische Theologie, 1; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1986).

126. D. G. Spriggs, Two OT Theologies (SBT, 2/30; Naperville, IL, 1974),p. 89, as referred to by Goldingay, Theological Divers& p. 181.

127. Goldingay, 7heologica/ Divers& p. 115.128. Ibid., p. 11.129. Ibid., p. 185.


who limit OT theology to the descriptive task alone and sideswith R. E. Clements and others who combine the descriptivewith the theological tasks. 130 Here Goldingay separates him-self from the “what is meant” (OT/biblical theology) and “whatit means” (systematic theology) of Stendahl’s program on theone hand and on the other reacts to the debate between0. Eissfeldt and W. Eichrodt in the 1930s by giving morecredence to Eissfeldt than has been customary.131

There is a greater and greater recognition that no scholarworks so isolated from his faith community or tradition thatthis does not, or should not, be taken into consideration.Goldingay insists, “Indeed, a Christian writing OT theologycannot avoid writing in the light of the NT, because he cannotmake theological judgments without reference to the NT. Ad-mittedly the converse is also true: he cannot make theologicaljudgments on the NT in isolation from the OT.“1s2 Goldingay’s

130. R. E. Clements, OT Theology: A Fresh Approach (Atlanta, 1978), pp.10-11, 20, 155. Clements emphasizes repeatedly that OT theology is descrip-tive and theological in the sense that OT theology is “concerned with thetheological significance which this literature possesses in the modern world”(p. 20). He insists that “Old Testament theology must more openly recognisethat its function is to elucidate the role and authority of the Old Testamentin those religions which use it as a sacred canon and regard it as a fundamen-tal part of their heritage” (p. 155). Others who share similar concerns althoughin a variety of ways include Norman Porteous, Living the Mystery: CollectedEssays (Oxford, 1967), pp. 22-24; Paul D. Hanson, “Theology, OT,” in Harper’sBible Dictionary ed. Paul Achtemeier (San Francisco, 1985), pp. 1057-1062;idem, The People Called: The Growth of the Community in the Bible (SanFrancisco, 1986); Joseph W. Groves, Actualization and Interpretation in theOT (SBLDS, 86; Atlanta, 1987), pp. 165-210, where he provides a penetratingcriticism of G. von Rad’s “chronological actualization” and outlines his ownproposals.

131. See Otto Eissfeldt, “Israelitisch-jtidische Religionsgeschichte und alt-testamentliche Theologie,” ZAw 44 (1926), l-12, repr. in his Kleine Schriften(Bibingen, 1962), 1:105-114; trans. “History of Israelite-Jewish Religion and OTTheology,” in The Flowering of OT Theology: A Reader in Twentieth Century OTTheolo& ed. Ben C. Ollenburger, Elmer A. Martens, and Gerhard E Hasel(Wmona Lake, IN, 1991); Walther Eichrodt, “Hat die alttestamentliche Theologienoch selbstamlige Bedeutung innerhalb der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft?,”ZAW 47 (1929), 83-91; trans. “Does 01‘ Theology Still Have Independent Sig-nificance Within OT Scholarship,” in Flowering of OT Theology (1991)

132. Goldingay, Theological Diversity pp. 186-187.


modified and enlarged “cross-section” method does not ruleout “theological constructions” that are based on “diachronicapproaches.“133 It remains unclear just how both “cross-section” and “diachronic” approaches can function side byside unless both are so transformed and redefined that theyare something new or something so different that the relation-ship with what has been so designated by either Eichrodt andhis followers or von Rad and his followers has undergone afull transmutation. Goldingay challenges OT theology withhis formidable theological proposals and engages himself indoing it.134

D. The Topical Mefhod. The topical method is distinguishedfrom the dogmatic-didactic method in its refusal to let outsidecategories be superimposed as a grid through which the OTmaterials and themes are read, ordered, and systematized. Italso steers away from the cross-section method and its syn-thesis of. the OT world of thought. The topical method assurveyed in this section is used either in combination with asingle or dual center of the OT or without an explicit thematiccenter.

John L. McKenzie has made an eloquent case for the topicalapproach. In contrast to the vast majority of scholarly opinionin the decade under review he is adamant in his emphasisthat he “wrote the theology of the Old Testament as if the NewTestament did not exist.“I35 The significance of this positionis best recognized in contrast to the emphasis of B. S. Childs,who pleads for a Biblical theology built on the Scripturalcanon,136 and the American and European scholars who sug-gest a diachronic traditio-historical approach for Biblical the-ology. McKenzie sees himself standing close to A. von Har-

133. Ibid., pp. 197-199.134. Ibid., pp. 200-239, where he engages in his “Unifying Approach to

‘Creation’ and ‘Salvation’ in the OT.”135. J. L. McKenzie, A Theology of the OT (New York, 1974), p. 319.136. B. S. Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis; idem, “The OT as Scripture

of the Church,” CT&f, 43 (1972), 709-722; idem, “The Canonical Shape of theProphetic Literature,” Interp, 32 (1976), 46-55.


nack and R. Bultmann,ls7 and we may add that he is close toE Baumg&te1138 in his affirmation that “the Old Testament isnot a Christian book.“139 McKenzie’s conception would neverpermit “a current of life flowing in reverse direction from theNew Testament to the Old.“140

The category of operation in McKenzie’s OT theology is“the totality of experience“141 expressed in the God-talk of theOT. Since “not every biblical experience of Yahweh, not everyfragment of God-talk, is of equal profundity,“142 the object ofOT theology is to be governed by “the experience of thetotality.” McKenzie speaks of an “inner unity” of the OTwithout clearly designating it. It is linked with the “ways Israel

“14s. . . experienced Yahweh, and the totality of this experi-ence “shows the reality of Yahweh with a clarity which par-ticular books and passages do not have.“144 The structure ofan OT theology, its categories or themes, will be based on that“totality of the experience” that admittedly “is an artificiallyunified analysis of a historic experience which has a differentinner unity from the unity of logical discourse.“145

On the basis of the quantitative totality of Israel’s experi-ence, McKenzie departs from all previous structures of OTtheology146 in placing the cult first.147 This is followed bychapters on “Revelation,” “History,” “Nature,” “Wisdom,” and

137. McKenzie, Theology of the OT, p. 319.136. E Baumgartel, “Erw&gungen zur Darstellung der Theologie des AT,”

7TZ, 76 (1951), 257-272; “Gerhard von Rads Theologie des AT,” TLZ, 66 (1961),801-816, 895-908; “The Hermeneutical Problem of the OT,” in EO7’H, pp.134-159. See also L. Schmidt, “Die Einheit zwischen Alten und Neuen Testa-ment im Streit zwischen Friedrich Baumgartel und Gerhard von Rad,” Evl:35 (1975), 119-139.

139. McKenzie, Theology of the 01: p. 319.140. TO1: I, 26.141. McKenzie, Theology of the 01: p. 35.142. Ibid.143. Ibid., 32.p.144. Ibid., p. 35.145. Ibid., pp. 34f.146. Ibid. , 23-25.pp.147. Ibid. , 37-63.pp.


“Political and Social Institutions,” and concludes with a chap-ter entitled “The Future of Israel.”

It is obvious that McKenzie has gone his own way and isto be credited with pioneering a new method-the topicalmethod. As in the case of any other method, the pressingquestions regard the principle of selectivity on the one handand the principle of faithfulness to the proposed method onthe other hand. The last point shall receive first consideration.In choosing a topical approach one would expect consistency.This does not seem to have been entirely achieved. McKenziedeparts from his own path when it comes to the WritingProphets within the chapter on “Revelation.” The section en-titled “The Message of the Prophets” provides “a very generalsummary of topics which can each be discussed on the scaleof a book,“148 i.e., a book-by-book approach in historicalsequence and on the basis of literary-critical judgments. Buteven here there is no consistency. Joel and Zech. 9-14 are saidto be treated in connection with apocalyptic in the last chap-ter, and Nahum and Obadiah are said to be discussed in thechapter on “History.” In the case of Nahum and Obadiah theirnames are mentioned in connection with other oracles againstthe nations and that is all.149 Joel and Zech. 9-14 fare slightlybetter; together they receive two pages of discussion.150

The principle of selectivity, namely, what is to be includedor excluded in an OT theology, or, to use the words ofMcKenzie, what is “of equal profundity,“151 is detectedthrough the “most frequent manner in which the Israeliteexperienced Yahweh.“152 Evidently here the proper principleof selectivity is the quantitative frequency of experience. Thisis apparently the norm for both topical selection and topicalsequence. This is the reason why the cult is given first placein McKenzie’s OT theology. How defensible is the claim thatthe quantitative communal experience of Yahweh has priority

148. Ibid., p. 102.149. Ibid., p. 171.150. Ibid., pp. 302-304.151. Ibid., p. 35.152. Ibid., p. 32.


over a qualitative individual experience of Yahweh? Onewonders whether there is “equal profundity” in regular culticexperience as compared to the single experience of a Moses,Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, Hosea, etc. One may inquire whethera quantitative “totality of experience” is an adequate meansfor selectivity and arrangement of topics. Departures from thequantitative principle to a qualitative one, as in the messageof the prophets, may provide a clue to this problem.

At this place we want to turn our attention to two otherfamous scholars and their contributions to the subject of OTtheology. Georg Fohrer presented his l3eologische Grzmd-strukturen des AT (Basic Theological Structures of the OT)in 1972 after a number of preliminary studies*53 and a widelyacclaimed History of Zsraelite ReZigion154 was published.Fohrer affirms a center of the OT in the form of a “dualconcept”*55 that consists of “the rule of God and the com-munion between God and man,“*56 but refrains from employ-ing it as the principle for systematizing or organizing theOT materials into an OT theology. Fohrer’s OT theologythus avoids the cross-section method, the genetic method,

and the dogmatic method with its Theology-Anthropology-Soteriology structure. On the other hand, he is pioneering inOT theology by joining a topical approach that is descriptivein purpose with the meaning it carries for the present. Inother words, he is attempting to bridge the gap betweenreconstruction and interpretation157 or between “what itmeant” and “what it means.“158

153:ParticuIarly important are the following studies: G. Fohrer, “Der Mit-telpunkt einer Theologie des AT,” 72, 24 (1968), 161-172; “The Centre of aTheology of the 01:” Nederlands theologisch tijdschrif, 7 (1966), 198-206; “DasAT und das Thema ‘Christologie,’ ” Ev?: 30 (1970), 281-298; St&en zur o&e&o-medichen 7heologie und Geschichte [1949-19&T] (BZAW, 115; Berlin, 1969).

154. First published under the title Geschichte der israelitischen Religion(Berlin, 1969).

155. Fohrer, “Das AT und das Thema ‘Christologie’,” p. 295.156. Fohrer, “Der Mittelpunkt einer Theologie des AT,” p. 163.157. See particularly 0. Merk, Biblische Theologie des NT in ihmr An-

fangszeit (Marburg, 1972), pp. 260-262.158. K. Stendahl, “Biblical Theology, Contemporary,” IDB, I (1962), 418-


An investigation of Fohrer’s method*59 reveals that Chap-ter 4, “Unity in Manifoldness,” is the heart of his book thatelucidates the center of “the rule of God and the communionbetween God and man.” The first three chapters, entitledrespectively “Types of Interpreting the OT,” “OT and Revela-tion,” and “The Manifoldness of Attitudes of Existence,” buildtoward Fohrer’s central concern in Chapter 4. Chapter 5,“Power of Change and Capacity of Change,” gives the impres-sion of a kind of parenthesis within the total structure of hisOT theology. It attempts to demonstrate how the influence ofthe theological center of the rulership of God and communionbetween God and man changed the faith of Israel and theconception of the theological center itself. The next chapter,“Developments,” points back to what was developed, and thelast chapter, “Applications,” suggests the interpretation formodern man by elucidating “what it means.”

It is necessary to linger a little longer with Fohrer becauseof certain innovative emphases. In Chapter 3 Fohrer discussesthe diversity of man’s attitudes of existence in terms of a“magic” attitude which is negatively evaluated and rejected.The second attitude of existence is the cultic one, which is “atransformation of the faith of the time of Moses”*60 primarilyunder the influence of magic. “The whole cult is geared to getsomething out of God.“161 Fohrer interprets the cult only innegative terms. Note the contrast to McKenzie, who gives itfirst place. In Fohrer’s view the law “saves but in gaining God’sfavor and assuring his grace.“*62 It too is negative.163 Fohreradmits that “the faith in Israel’s election through God isbasic,“*64 but it too receives from him a negative evaluation.

432. On the varieties of meanings this distinction may carry, see Hasel, NTTheology, pp. 136-139.

159. TOT, I, 26.160. Fohrer, Theologische Grundstrukturen des AT, p. 62.161. Ibid., 65.p.162. Ibid.163. Ibid., 67.p.164. Ibid., 69.p.


In contrast to Fohrer’s negations of the attitudes of existenceof magic, cult, law, and election, he suggests that the onlyattitude of existence that is to be seen positively is “the pro-phetic attitude of existence.“*65 The dynamic prophetic atti-tude of existence also overcomes wisdom, because wisdom“is concerned with how one may best be the master of life.“*66In short, Fohrer depicts six attitudes of existence of whichfive-magic, cult, law, national election, and wisdom-arebut temporal and thus negative attempts to secure exis-tence,lG7 whereas one-the prophetic attitude of existence-is supratemporal and thus positive. “In its core it is existencein believing submission and obedient service on account of acomplete communion with God. Thus it has lasting mean-ing."168

At this point the criteria for the evaluations of the Israeliteattitudes of existence are fully apparent. The attitudes of exis-tence in which man attempts to be “the master of life” areconsidered temporal and negative. The attitude of existencethat has a supratemporal quality and lasting meaning ischaracterized by “believing submission and obedient service.”To what degree are these evaluations and assessments depen-dent on exegetical and theological conclusions? For example,not all experts in wisdom theology necessarily share Fohrer’sposition on OT wisdom. 16s Further research will have toaddress itself to these issues.

165. Ibid., pp. 71-86.166. Ibid., p. 87.167. Ibid., pp. 85, 93f.168. Ibid., p. 94.169. Wisdom literature and ideology has been reckoned as an “alien

body” within the Israelite canon and biblical theology by H. D. Preuss, “Er-wagungen zum theologischen Ort alttestamentlicher Weisheits Literatur,” Ev’l:36 (1976), 393-417; idem, “Alttestamentliche Weisheit in christlicher Theo-logic?” Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum Zovaniensium, 33 (1974), 165-181. For different assessments, see the literature cited by R. B. Y. Scott, “TheStudy of the Wisdom Literature,” Znterp, 24 (19701, 20-45; J. L. Crenshaw,“Wisdom,” in OT Form Criticism, ed. J. H. Hayes (San Antonio, 1974), pp.225-264; idem, ed., Studies in Ancient Israelite Wsdom (New York, 1975);idem, “Wisdom in the OT,” IDB Supplement (1976), pp. 952-956.


Let us turn to Fohrer’s discussion of six attitudes of exis-tence and the issue of the center of the OT and OT theology.Is the dual concept of “the rule of God and the communionbetween God and man” for Fohrer typical of all six OT atti-tudes of existence, although Fohrer finds five inferior andrejects them? C. Westermann understands Fohrer as derivinghis center from all six attitudes of existence and concludesthat he merges two originally independent methods in his OTtheology, namely, one built on the principle of attitudes ofexistence and another built on the center of the 0T.170 I aminclined to disagree with Westermann. Fohrer takes his centerfrom the one genuine attitude of existence and the traditionsthat reflect it. Among them are some patriarchal experiencesand the purity of the Mosaic faith to which the propheticattitude of existence returns.171 If our understanding of Fohreris correct, then he cannot be charged with a merging ofmethods or with a methodological inconsistency at this point.If we are correct another issue emerges, namely, the center ofOT theology is in this instance not identical with the totalityof the OT witness, and some,parts of the Israelite experienceare not even marginal with reference to the center, but areruled out by the center. At this point, then, we are approachingthe idea of “a canon within the canon” and its concomitantcontent criticism.

The issue of “a canon within the canon,” or as the late G. E.Wright called it, an “authoritative core” within the OT,172 isnot a new problem in Biblical studies. It reaches back at leastto the Reformation,173 and has exercised Biblical scholarshipever since.1T4 In the case of Fohrer, one has the impressionthat the choice of his center is deeply involved with his

170. Westermann, “Zu zwei Theologien des AT,” p. 100.171. Fohrer seems to make the suggestion of his center on the basis of

materials that reflect the “prophetic” attitude of existence.172. Wright, The OT and Theology, pp. 180-183.173. I. Lonning, “Kanon im Kanon.” Zum dogmatischen Grundlagenpro-

blem des neutestamenflichen Kanon (Munich, 1972).174. Representative bibliographies are provided in Hasel, NT Theolo@,

pp. 141 n. 1, 165 n. 139.


understanding of the OT prophets and his objections to alinking of the Israelite prophets and their message with themainstream of Israelite traditions, as G. von Rad and otherscholars have emphasized. 17s In any case, it remains to beseen what influence Fohrer’s negative interpretation of theattitudes of existence of magic, cult, law,*76 wisdom, and elec-tion will have on subsequent scholarship. The matter of “acanon within the canon” as raised by Fohrer reminds us ofthe significant stirrings these days regarding the OT canon forBiblical theology in the studies of B. S. Childs, the “canonicalcriticism”*77 called for by James A. Sanders,*78 as well asJoseph Blenkinsopp’s thesis that the Hebrew Bible is basicallyprophetic.179

Another giant of OT scholarship is W. Zimmerli, who haspresented the ripe fruit of a lifetime of study*80 in OT Theologyin Outline. It was released in English in 1978 and has largely

175. G. Fohrer, “Remarks on Modern Interpretation of the Prophets,“]BL,80 (1961), 309-319, esp. 316: “The prophets were neither mere reformers norrevolutionaries nor evolutionists. They were not dependent upon old tradi-tions, did not create anything wholly new without basis in the religion ofIsrael, and did not complete a development already begun.”

176. Fohrer’s concept of law in connection with the attitude of existenceapparently excludes the Decalogue, which is later in his exposition describedin very positive ways (Tfteologische Grundstruktumn des AT pp. 166-171). Itis surprising that in the earlier section no hint is provided for excluding theDecalogue from the negative evaluation of law.

177. Childs (“The Canonical Shape of the Prophetic Literature,” Znterp,32 [1978], 54) objects to this designation on the grounds that “it implies thatthe concern with canon is viewed as another historical-critical techniquewhich can take its place alongside of source criticism, form criticism, rhe-torical criticism, and the like.”

/ 178. J. A. Sanders, Torah and Canon (2nd ed.; Philadelphia, 1974); idem,“Hermeneutics,” IDB Supplement (1976), pp. 402-407.

179. J. Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon. A Contribution to the Studyof Iewish Origins (Notre Dame, 1977).

180. W. Zimmerli, Gaffes Qfjenbarung. Gesammelte Aufsiitze zum A T(TBii, 19; Munich, 1963); Der Mensch und seine Hoftimng im AT (Gottingen,1968), trans. Man and His Hope in the OT (SBT, 2/20; Naperville, IL, 1971);The Law and the Prophets (London, 1965); Die Weltiichkeit des AT (Gottingen,1971), trans. T%e OTand the World (London, 1976). Among Zimmerli’s manyessays the following is particularly relevant: “Alttestamentliche Traditions-geschichte und Theologie,” in Probleme biblischer Theologie, pp. 632-647.


the same content as the German original published six yearsearlier. The dust jacket informs the reader that “the materialis conveniently organized by topic” and “emphasizes theolog-ical themes.” The topical-thematic approach is at the fore-front.

The task of OT theology is conceived by Zimmerli as adescriptive one. OT theology must present “what the OldTestament says about God in a coherent whole.“*81 Zimmerlidenies that the “coherent whole” consists “merely in continu-ity of history, that is, the ongoing stream of historicalsequence” @ace G. von Rad and followers).*s2 Instead con-tinuity is found “in the sameness of the God it [faith] knowsby the name of Yahweh.“183

Having linked continuity within evident change uniquelywith the confession of the name of Yahweh as revealed toMoses and incorporated in the proclamation of the Decalogue(Ex. 20:Zf.; Dt. 5:6f.),ls4 Zimmerli sets out to present the the-ology of the OT in five major sections. Parts I-III treat OTtheology under the headings “Fundamentals,” “The Gifts Be-

181. Zimmerli, OT fieology in Outline, p. 12.182. Ibid., p. 13.183. Ibid., p. 14.184. Earlier Zimmerli had argued that with the sentence “I am Yahweh,

your God” (Ex. 262) “an actual foundation of everything following is given”(‘Alttestamentliche Traditionsgeschichte und Theologie,” p. 639) and thatwith the confessional response “You . . . Yahweh” has “come to view a centerwhich is uniquely held onto in the entire OT history of tradition and inter-pretation” (ibid., p. 640). In later publications Zimmerli leaves the impressionthat he moves to a broader understanding of the center of the OT in hisemphasis on the name of Yahweh. “If an OT theology proceeds from the nameof Yahweh, which is the center of all OT speaking about God, then it willkeep itself strictly to the self-interpretation of the OT and remain consciousthat it meets in the name of Yahweh the one who speaks and who refuses togive up his freedom in such speaking” (“Erwagungen zur Gestalt einer alt-testamentlichen Theologie,” p. 84). It appears that in his article “Zum Problemder ‘Mitte des AT,‘” EvT, 35 (1975) 97-118, the center is Yahweh as Lord. Ifour observations are correct, then Zimmerli moves from a more narrowlydefined conception of the center of the OT to a broader and more inclusiveone which covers also the wisdom materials (“Zum Problem,” pp. 164-log),which still pose special problems in his OT theology (OT Theology in Outline,pp. 155-166).


stowed by Yahweh,” and “Yahweh’s Commandment.” The firstof these parts is undoubtedly one of the two foci in Zimmerli’sstructure, because it sets out the “fundamentals” of Yahwehin the Pentateuch from the Mosaic era onward. This is similarto G. von Rad, whose first part deals with the theology of theHexateuch, but von Rad includes the primeval history andthe history of the patriarchs within this section.185 The otherfocus in Zimmerli’s tome is Part V “Crisis and Hope,” whichis a kind of soteriology. It has a central emphasis in themessage of the Writing Prophets that is summarized in book-by-book fashion. In other words, the Pentateuchal picture ofYahweh is the foundation; its crisis climaxes in OT prophecy.

Parts II and III are related to each other as gift and task(G&e-Aufgabe). Various themes are incorporated under thegifts of Yahweh: “war and victory,” “the land and its blessings,”“the gift of God’s presence,” and “charismata of leadershipand instruction.” The part on Yahweh’s commandment putsan overemphasis on the first and second commandments ofthe Decalogue. Slight treatment is given to the laws of litur-gical, ritual, and social import. The cult of Israel has first placein McKenzie, is written off as negative by Fohrer, and hashardly any place in Zimmerli’s OT theology. The schemes ofZimmerli and Kaiser apparently do not lend themselves toinclusion of the Hebrew cultus within an OT theology.

Zimmerli entitles Part IV “Life before God” and therebybrings to mind von Rad’s chapter “Israel before Yahweh”*86in which Israel’s response to Yahweh comes into view. Asidefrom the relationship in title, Zimmerli treats in this part thesame topics as von Rad, but in much more compressed form,with only ten pages on wisdom theology,*87 the step-child inOT theology. It is high time that wisdom theology takes itsown place in OT theology, and the attempt of S. Terrien*s8 inthis direction is overdue.

185. OTT I, 136-279.186. err: I, 355-459.187. Zimmerli, OT Theology in Outline, pp. 155-165.188. See below, 86-88.pp.


The methodological procedure of Zimmerli is in some re-spects unusual. Topics or themes are grouped together in someparts that raise the question of how they relate to each other.One would expect that the historical books be accorded aseparate treatment that elucidates their theological emphases.Why should the theology of the prophets in book-by-booksequence be characterized as “judgment and salvation” andbe part of a chapter on judgment and hope? Fohrer makes itthe heart of his OT theology, and von Rad treats it extensivelyin the second volume of his OT theology, but Zimmerli tucksit away among other matters.

The OT theologies of McKenzie, Fohrer, and Zimmerli sharemore or less a topical approach but are methodologically sodiverse that they can hardly be compared. The starting-pointsof each are radically different. McKenzie affirms an “innerunity” in the form of a quantitative experience of Yahweh. Onthis foundation the cult deserves first place. One would thenassume that the topic that has last place, in McKenzie’s case“The Future of Israel,” is at the bottom of the quantitativescale. But this is hardly so and there is no logic in the sequenceof themes.

Fohrer and Zimmerli proceed from explicit centers of theOT, but again each in his own way. Fohrer proceeds from acenter which is apparently derived from the prophetic attitudeof existence. In his view this is the only legitimate attitude ofexistence when compared to others such as magic, cult, law,election, and wisdom. It is from this prophetic attitude ofexistence that later “developments” and “applications” areelucidated. Zimmerli proceeds also from a center. It has itsroots and origin squarely in the Pentateuch and particularlyin the Mosaic era. The “crisis” forms the other pole andreaches from primeval history via some Pentateuchal tradi-tions and the historical writings to the prophetic books. Thethree parts in between this arch are seen as gift, requirement,and response. Four of the five parts of Zimmerli are more orless topical, but the last part, which is the second major poleof his structure, gives way to a book-by-book approach in


historical sequence. McKenzie also departs from the topicalapproach by inserting a book-by-book section on “The Mes-sage of the Prophets” in the chapter on “Revelation.” In short,the three major representatives of the topical approach in thisdecade differ vastly in (1) starting-points, (2) structures oftheir materials, (3) selection of topics, (4) sequence of presen-tation, (5) centers of OT theology, (6) emphases and evalua-tions of OT materials, and (7) consistency in their own in-dividual structures.

E. The Diachronic Method. The diachronic method for OTtheology is dependent upon traditio-historical research whichwas developed in the 1930s. 189 Already then one of its found-ing fathers, G. von Rad, used it “in order to arrive at that whichfor him is theologically important.“lss In 1957 and 1961 hepublished the two volumes of his OT Theology, which stimu-lated fresh thought and research of unprecedented propor-tions together with a vigorous debate. Von Rad seeks to “retell”the kerygrna or confession of the OT as uncovered by meansof the diachronic traditio-historical method. The diachronicapproach penetrates into the successive layers of the fixedtext of the OT with the aim of unfolding “Israel’s theologicalactivity which is probably one of its most important andinteresting ones, namely those ever new attempts to make thedivine acts of salvation relevant for every new age and day-this ever new reaching-out to and avowal of God’s acts whichin the end made the old credal statements grow into suchenormous masses of traditions.“*a* Von Rad is the first andonly scholar who has ever published a full-fledged diachronicOT theology of the historical traditions of Israel.

Von Rad’s monumental OT Theology*92 needs to be under-

189. See D. A. Knight, Rediscovering the ‘Raditions of Ismel (SBLDS, 9;Missoula, 1973).

199. Ibid., p. 121.191. a I, vi.192. Many important reviews are cited by G. Henton Davies, “Gerhard

von Rad, OT Theology,” in Contemporary OT Theologians, pp. 65-89. Thefollowing articles deal largely with the problems raised by von Rad: E Hesse,


stood as the theology of the historical and prophetic tradi-tions, fully using the diachronic method. He prefaces histheology of the traditions with a sketch of the history ofYahwism and Israelite sacral institutions as reconstructed bythe historical-critical method and states that “historical inves-tigation searches for a critically assured minimum- the ker-ygmatic picture tends towards a theological maximum.“*asThis means for von Rad that an OT theology cannot do justiceto the content of the OT through a presentation of the min-imum. The OT theologian must recognize that the “kerygmaticpicture” as painted by the faith of Israel is also “founded inthe actual history and has not been invented.“194 As a matterof fact “Israel with her testimonies speaks from such a deeplevel of historical experience which historical-critical researchis unable to reach.“195 Thus the subject of an OT theology isabove all “this world made up of testimonies” and not “asystematic ordered world of faith” or thoughtlas This worldof “testimonies,” i.e., “what Israel herself testified concerningJahweh,“lg7 namely, “the word and deed of Jahweh in his-tory,“‘98 presents neither pure revelation from above nor pure

“Die Erforschung der Geschichte als theologische Aufgabe,” KuD, 4 (1958)l-19; idem, “Kerygma oder geschichtliche Wirklichkeit?” Z’IK 57 (1960),17-26; idem, “Bew&rt sich eine ‘Theologie der Heilstatsachen’ am AT? ZumVerhaltnis von Faktum und Deutung ?” ZTK, 81 (1969). l-17; V. Maag, “His-torische und ausserhistorische Begriindung alttestamentlicher Theologie,”Schweizer Theologische Vmschau, 29 (1959) 6-18; E Baumgartel, “Gerhardvon Rads Theologie des AT,” TLZ, 86 (1961), 801-816, 895-908; Ch. Barth,“Grundprobleme einer Theologie des AT,” EvT 23 (1963), 342-372;M. Honecker, “Zum Verstandnis der Geschichte in Gerhard von Rads Theo-logic des AT,“&?: 23 (1963), 143-168; H. Graf Reventlow, “Grundfragen eineralttestamentlichen Theologie im Lichte der neueren deutschen Forschung,”7Z, 17 (1961), Slff.; Gerhard E Hasel, “The Problem of History in OT The-ology,” AVSS, 8 (19701, 23-50; Harvey, BTB, 1 (19711, 9ff.

193. TAT, I, 120; OTT, I, 108.194. Ibid.195. TAT I, 120. Since OTI: I, was translated from the 2nd German

edition, it does not have this sentence.196. TAT I, 124; OTT, I, 111. Here von Rad goes contrary to the approach

of Eichrodt.197. TAT I, 118; OTI: I, 105.198. TAT I, 127; Ol?: I, 114.


perception and presentation from below, but is “drawn up byfaith” and is accordingly “confessional in character.“*sg It isthese confessional statements of the “continuing activity ofGod in history“200 that are the proper subject-matter of an OTtheology. It is obvious that with von Rad kerygma theologyhas broken with full power into the field of OT studies.201

Von Rad emphasizes the more complete “kerygmatic pic-ture” with the deeper dimensions of reality as the one whichOT theology must explicate. But is not this kind of theolo-gizing, which is based upon the confessional and thus keryg-matic testimonies of the OT, still very unrelated to the his-torical-critical reconstruction of Israel’s history, because thelatter does not coincide with the kerygmatic picture of OTfaith and history? This is precisely the point von Rad likes tomake. For him the historians reconstructed picture of Israel’shistory is impoverished and therefore unable to be the basisfor explicating the total reality contained in the OT testimo-nies, with which an OT theology must concern itself. Becauseof this he focuses in his theology on the OT interpretation,rather than basing his OT theology on the historical-criticalinterpretation of events whose historicity is not in question.At this point the sharp and incisive criticism of modern his-toriography’s methods and presuppositions on the part of vonRad leads critical scholarship into self-critical introspectionand evaluation of that which should have normativecharacter. Although this is a step in the right direction, thehistory von Rad envisages too often falls short of the OTtestimonies, because his history is history of tradition, orhistorical experiences influencing traditions. To this crucialpoint in his theological endeavor we need to return, becauseit raises the problem of the relation of Traditionsgeschichte toHistoric and Heilsgeschichte.

199. TAT I, 119; On; I, 107.200. TAT I, 118; On: I, 106.261. TOT I, 515. See also the interpretation of von Rad by 0. Cullmann,

Salvation in History (New York, 1967), pp. 54ff. On Cullmann’s understandingand usage of von Rad, see Kraus, Biblische fieologie, pp. 186ff.


The matter of presenting OT theology is defined by vonRad in a new way. “Re-telling [Nacherziihlen] remains themost legitimate form of theological discourse on the Old Testa-ment.“so2 What does von Rad understand by “re-telling”? Howis the theologian or preacher to proceed? Is he just to relate,i.e., to tell again, what the OT has told without translating ittheologically for modern man? Von Rad’s notion of “re-telling”is ambiguous.

It appears that von Rad has chosen the notion of “retelling”because he refuses to construe a new system. In his view anysystem is alien to the nature of the OT. In this we might easilyagree with him. Von Rad is also unable to find a “center[Mitie]“203 in the OT. For these reasons he limits himself tonarrating what the OT says about its own contents. He em-phasizes that since Israel stated her kerygmatic-confessionaltestimonies in historical statements, we cannot state it in anyother way except in “retelling,” in a rehearsal of the narrative.The problem that this method produces for applied theologyis immense.

With regard to this problem E Baumgartel asks how onecan speak, e.g., in a theologically legitimate way about Hos.l-3 when one merely retells what is stated there? How doesthis retelling proceed? In what way is it, whenever it takesplace, the legitimate theological discourse on the OT?204 Onemay surmise that the criticism concerning the ambiguousnotion of “re-telling” caused von Rad to place less emphasison it in more recent years205

202. TAT, I, 135; OTT, I, 121. “Re-telling” as the most appropriate formof presenting the OT has been supported by Ch. Barth, EvT 23 (1963), 346;H.-J. Stoebe, ‘Uberlegungen zu Theologie des AT,” in Got&s Wart und Gottesland. H.-W Hertzberg zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. H. Graf Reventlow (Gottingen,1965), p. 206; E Mildenberger Die halbe Wahrheit oder die ganze Schrift(Munich, 1967) pp. 79ff.

203. TAT II, 376; OTI: II, 362; cf. Hasel, AVSS, 8 (1970) 25-29.204. Baumglrtel, lZ2, 86 (1961), 903f.205. In von Rad’s important article “Offene Fragen im Umkreis einer

Theologie des AT,” 722, 88 (1963), 401-416, the notion of Nacherziihlenrecedes completely.


Despite the various criticisms that have been leveledagainst it in the early period, the whole issue pertaining tothe matter of “re-telling” reveals nonetheless von Rad’s inter-est to actualize the OT for modern man. In other words, thegap that the so-called scientific or historical-critical methodof research has created between the past and the presentremains the most intense issue for the Biblical scholar oftoday. How are Biblical texts to be applied today?206 There arevarious uses of Scripture today, most of which are “functional”in approach, and it hardly matters whether the names areassociated with liberalism in its more classical form or neo-orthodoxy in some shape or another.207 Furthermore, the pic-ture in modern Catholicism is not much different from thatin Protestantism.208

It was the contribution of Gerhard von Rad to attempt the“actualization” (Vergegenwtirtigung) in his OT theology. Thisterm is chosen by Joseph W. Groves for the rubric of themethodological proposal “by which the Biblical text is con-temporized. “2as ‘Actualization” is the most widely used her-meneutical method, which was developed and pioneered byvon Rad and adopted and adapted by such OT theologians asC. Westermann (discussed later in this chapter), Norman Por-

206. One of the most penetrating analyses of the question of the religiousapplication of Biblical texts for communities of faith today is the investigationof Hans W. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narmtive: A Study in Eighteenth andNineteenth Century Hermeneutics (New Haven/London, 1974). Similar per-spectives from a more recent vantage point are provided by Langdon Gilkey,Naming the Whirlwind (Indianapolis, 1969) pp. 91-106; and from a strictlyevangelical point of view, Carl E H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authori&IV (Waco, 1979), 454-457.

207. See David H. Kelsey, The Uses of Scripture in Recent TheoZogy(Philadelphia, 1975).

208. See Avery Dulles, “Scripture: Recent Protestant and CatholicViews,” TToday, 37 (1980), 7-26; Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, “Biblical Inter-pretation in Crisis: On the Question of the Foundations and Approaches ofExegesis Today,” in Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: The Ratzinger Conferenceon Bible and Church, ed. Richard J. Neuhaus (Encounter Series, 9; GrandRapids, 1989), pp. l-23.

209. Joseph W. Groves, Actualization and Interpretation in the OT(SBLDS, 86; Atlanta, 1987) p. 5.


teous,210 Peter Ackroyd, 211 Bernhard W. Anderson,212 WalterBrueggemann,213 James A. Sanders,2*4 and more, as men-tioned by Groves .2*s Groves attains a careful analysis ofvon Rad’s thought, which he summarizes as regards “actual-ization” as follows: “Von Rad has presented the most completedescription of its [actualization] application to Old Testamenttheology, but no one else has used the term in exactly thesame manner as he.“216 He explains, “While von Rad devel-oped the concept of chronological actualization specificallyto describe the Old Testament’s method of contemporizing oldtraditions, neither he nor other scholars utilizing the conceptoperate in a vacuum.“2*7 Groves goes on to show that asregards the concepts of cult, history, and time the actualiza-tions of von Rad, i.e., “the uniqueness of [von Rad’s] chrono-logical actualization remains an unproven assumption.“2*sVon Rad has built his case of the connection of the OT withthe NT on the foundation of the traditio-historical unity ofthe Bible. Von Rad and the other proponents of actualizationattempt to bridge the gap between the past and the presentthat the historical-critical method created219 by appeal to “a

210. N. Porteous, “Actualization and the Prophetic Criticism of the Cult,”in Living the Mystery: Collected Essays (Oxford, 1967). pp. 127-142.

211. Peter Ackroyd, Studies in the Religious Ti-aa%ion of the OT (London,1987).

212. Bernhard W. Anderson, “Mythopoeic and Theological Dimensionsof Biblical Creation Faith,” in Creation in the 01: ed. B. W. Anderson (IRT, 6;London/Philadelphia, 1984), pp. l-24.

213. Walter Brueggemann, “Futures in OT Theology,” HBT 6 (1984) l-11;idem, ‘A Shape for OT Theology, I: Structure Legitimation,” CBQ, 47 (1985),28-46; idem, ‘fA Shape for OT Theology, II: Embrace of Pain,” CBQ, 47 (1985)395-415.

214. James A. Sanders, Dam Sacred Story to Sacred Text (Philadelphia,1987); idem, Tomh and Canon (Philadelphia, 1972); idem, Canon and Com-munity: A Guide to Canonical Criticism (Philadelphia, 1984).

215. Groves, Actualization, p. 5.216. Ibid., pp. 104-105.217. Ibid., p. 116.218. Ibid., p. 129.219. Wolfhart Pannenberg, Basic Questions in TheoZogy, I (Philadelphia,

1970) p. 6, may serve as a reference point in his insightful analysis: “Thedevelopment of historIcal[-critical] research led to the dissolution of the


continuing series of witnesses, beginning with the earliesttraditions of Israel, extending through God’s revelation ofJesus Christ, and reaching to our present day.“220 Groves re-veals with keen sensitivity the breaks in that continuous chainof chronological actualization in the OT and beyond.221 Inaddition, the history of Christian exegesis flaws the overalldesign of the chronological actualization that is to link upwith contemporary theology. 222 Groves’s conclusions are re-vealing: “The traditio-historical method too often results incircular arguments, tenuous reconstructions, and fragmenta-tion of the text, which make the critical method the masterof the text and determinative for its interpretation. . . . In thefinal analysis the method is too weak to carry the weight ofthe tensions, omissions, and distortions of the modern meth-odologies which it uses to operate on the Old Testament. Thegoal of an inner-Biblical base for a theological-historical in-terpretation of the Old Testament is yet to be achieved.“223

Thus the search for another basis for the theological meaningof the OT for Christian faith continues. What is said here for the“diachronic approach’ has equal application for the “forma-tion-of-tradition approach,” which will be considered in thenext section,224 because it is built on the same methodology.

There are rumblings of readjustments in the reconstructedstrata of the Pentateuch or Hexateuch (J, E, D, P).225 Questions

Scripture principle in the form Protestant scholasticism had given it, andthereby brought on the crisis in the foundations of evangelical theology whichhas become more and more acute during the past century or so. . . . Thisdistance [between the biblical texts and the present] has become the sourceof our most vexing theological problems.”

229. Groves, Actualization, p. 129.221. Ibid., pp. 129-141.222. Ibid, p. 141.223. Ibid., pp. 162-163.224. Groves ended his penetrating study with his own beginnings of a

“Redefinition of Actualization,” ibid., pp. 165-210, which concludes that actual-ization is not the grand design for a theological and historical linkage (p. 210).

225. See R. E. Clements, “Pentateuchal Problems,” in ‘Tradition and In-terp. Essays by the Members of the Society for OT Study, ed. G. W. Anderson(Oxford, 1979), pp. 96-124.


about the existence of the historical stratum E have beenraised at various times by prominent scholars in the field(I? Volz, W. Rudolph, S. Mowinckel).2s6 In the 1970s ques-tions of a most serious nature were raised about the so-calledstrata of both J (YahWist)227 and P (Priestly Writers).228 Variousproblems in the supposed P stratum229 and in the so-calledDeuteronomist (D stratum)230 have been studied. New publi-cations deal with various aspects of adaptations of sourcestrata23* or traditions232 and assess the theological con-sequence of traditio-historical research.2ss

It is evident that current interest in traditio-historical re-search is focused largely on the theological formation of thematerial. A very recent trend in this area of research is aradical questioning regarding the early date of the so-calledYahwist in the tenth century and the unity of the “Yahwist”

226. See T. E. Fretheim, “Elohist,” JDB Supplement (1976), pp. 259-263.227. See below, n. 229.228. B. A. Levine, “Priestly Writers,” IDB SuppJement (1976), pp. 683-

687.229. I? E Ellis, 7he Yahvvist: The Bible’s First Theologian (Notre Dame,

1968); W. Brueggemann, “David and His Theologian,” CBQ, 30 (1968), 156-181; idem, “Yahwist,” IDB Supplement (1976), pp. 971-975, with literature;0. H. Steck, “Genesis 12, l-3 und die Urgeschichte des Jahwisten,” in Pro-bleme biblischer Theologie, pp. 525-554; R. N. Whybray, The InteJJectual lFaa!i-tion in the OT (BZAW, 135; Berlin, 1974); C. Westermann, Genesis (BiblischerKommentar: AT, I/10; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 19741, pp. 782-789, trans. Genesisl-1 2: A Commentary (Minneapolis, 1984) pp. 594-599.

230. S. Loersch, Das Deuteronomium und seine Deutungen (StuttgarterBibelstudien, 22; Stuttgart, 1967); E. W. Nicholson, Deuteronomy and Traa!i-tion (Philadelphia, 1967); G. Seitz, RedaktionsgeschicMJiche Studien zumDeutemnomium (Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament,93; Stuttgart, 1971); R. P Merendino, Das deutemnomische Gesetz (Bonnerbiblische Beitrage, 69; Bonn, 1969); M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and theDeutemnomic School (Oxford, 1972); N. Lohfink, “Deuteronomy,” RIB Supple-ment (1976), pp. 229-232 with literature: D. N. Freedman, “DeuteronomicHistory,” IDB Supplement (1976) pp. 226-228 with literature.

231. S. E. McEvenue, The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer (AnBib,50; Rome, 1971).

232. G. W. Coats and B. 0. Long, eds., Canon and Authority: Essays inOT Religion and Theology (Philadelphia, 1977).

233. D. A. Knight, ed., Tradition and Theology in the OT (Philadelphia,1977) with thirteen contributors of international standing.


with evidence for the proximity of the “Yahwist” with theDeuteronomic-Deuteronomistic formation of tradition, as em-phasized by H. H. Schmid. 234 Already in .1974 some basicquestions were raised by R. Rendtorff about the “Yahwist” astheologian, and he followed up those questions in a mono-graph on the traditio-historical problem of the Pentateuch.23sRendtorff’s penetrating studies dismiss the idea of a Yahwisttheology and give only restrained support to the notion of a“Priestly” theological stratum. He argues for the existence of“theologies” in the Pentateuch associated with Pentateuchal“themes” along the lines of M. Noth’s studies. All of this hasbrought about a lively debate in which scholars such as R. N.Whybray, John van Seters, N. E. Wagner, G. W. Coats, and R. E.Clements are active participants236 and in which even thewhole traditio-historical method is under attack.237 Whateverthe final outcome of these movements may be, it is clearalready that the essential consequences of these stirrings areultimately immense for a diachronic traditio-historical the-ology of the 0T.2as

E me “Formation-o~ZIadition” Method. The continuous

234. H. H. Schmid, Der sogenannte Jahwist. Beobacbmngen und Hagenzur Pentatezzcbforscbung (Zurich, 1976).

235. R. Rendtorff, “Der ‘Jahwist’ als Theologe? Zum Dilemma der Pen-tateuchkritik,” VT Supplement, 28 (1975), 158-166, trans. “The ‘Yahwist’ asTheologian? The Dilemma of Pentateuchal Criticism,” JSOT, 3 (1977), 2-10;idem, Das iiberlieferungsgescbichtlicbe Problem des Pentateucb (BZAW, 147;Berlin, 1977).

236. R. N. Whybray, “Response to Professor Rendtorff,” JSOT 3 (19771,11-14; J. van Seters, “The Yahwist as Theologian? AResponse,” JSOT, 3 (1977),15-19; N. E. Wagner, ‘A Response to Professor Rolf Rendtorff,” JSO?: 3 (1977),20-27; G. W Coats, “The Yahwist as Theologian? A Critical Reflection,” JSOT,3 (1977), 28-32; R. E. Clements, “Review of R. Rendtorff, Das tiberlieferungs-geschicbticbe Problem des Pentateucb,” JSOT 3 (1977), 46-56.

237. J. van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven, 1975),pp. 139-148; idem, “Form-Criticism in the Pentateuch: A Crisis in Method-ology.” Paper presented on Nov. 21, 1978, Annual Meeting of the Society ofBiblical Literature, New Orleans, USA.

238. Schmid, Der sogenannte Jahwist, p. 174; idem, “In Search of NewApproaches in Pentateuchal Research,” JSOT, 3 (1977) 33-42; R. Rendtorff,“Pentateuchal Studies on the Move,” JSOT 3 (1977), 43-45.


discussion and stimulus of von Rad’s diachronic method hashad another result in the development or continuation of anaspect of the diachronic traditio-historical method.

In the wake of G. von Rad’s OT theology and dependent uponthe traditio-historical method is the “formation-of-tradition”method of the OT scholar Ha&nut Gese23g and following himof the NT scholar Peter Stuhhnacher.240 Gese insists that OTtheology “must be understood essentially as an historicalprocess of development. Only in this way does such a theologyachieve unity, and only then can the question of its relationshipto the New Testament be raised.“241 He characterizes his pro-gram in terms of “theology as formation of tradition” and claimsthat “there is neither a Christian nor a Jewish theology of theOT, but one theology of the OT realized by means of the OTformation of tradition.“242

Gese’s programmatic thesis is that the NT forms the con-clusion of the formation of tradition begun in the OT, so that“the NT brings about the OT . . . [and thus] brings the so-called OT to an end.“243 This means basically that Biblicaltheology is built upon the unity of the tradition-buildingprocess, or, as Gese puts it, the unity of the Testaments “existsalready because of tradition history.“244 It is evident that con-tinuity between the Testaments and the unity of the Testa-ments is to be found neither in a center of each Testament

239. H. Gese, “Erw;igungen zur Einheit der biblischen Theologie,” Z’IK67 (1970), 417-436, repr. in Vom Sinai zum Zion. Aktestamentkbe Beitige

‘zur bibliscben Tbeologie (Munich, 1974), pp. 11-30; idem, Zur biblischenTbeologie. Aktestamentlicbe Wxtrtige (Munich, 1977); idem, “Tradition andBiblical Theology,” in LFadition and Theology in the 01: ed. D. A. Knight(Philadelphia, 1977), pp. 301-326.

240. I? Stuhlmacher, Scluiftauslegung auf dem Wege zur bibliscben Theo-logic (Gottingen, 1975); idem, Historical Criticism and Theological Interpreta-tion of Scripture (Philadelphia, 1977); idem, “Zum Thema: Biblische Theolo-gie des NT,” in Bibliscbe Tbeologie Heute, ed. K. Haacker (Neukirchen-Vluyn,1977) pp. 25-60.

241. Gese, “Tradition and Biblical Theology,” p. 393.242. Gese, Vom Sinai zum Zion, pp. 17f.243. Gese, Zur bibliscben Theologie, p. 11.244. Gese, “Tradition and Biblical Theology,” p. 322.


nor in a center common to both Testaments, but rather in thetradition process common to both Testaments. The NT is butan extension of the tradition-building process out of whichthe OT emerges, so that “the New Testament represents thegoal and end, the telos of the path of biblical tradition.“z4s Inshort, for Gese “only tradition history. . . can describe biblicaltheology. . . . Tradition history can become the method ofbiblical theology because it goes beyond historical facts andreligious phenomena and describes the living process formingtradition.“246

While Gese argues strongly against an approach to Biblicaltheology that is oriented and organized by a “center” (Mitte),thus following his mentor G. von Rad, Stuhlmacher arguesfor a “center” as a key in his “synthetic biblical theology ofthe New Testament.” For Stuhlmacher the “center” (Mitte) is“the gospel of the justification in Christ.“247 This does notmean that the basic traditio-historical orientation is aban-doned. Stuhlmacher maintains that the OT is the frameworkof the NT formation of tradition.248 “Old Testament and NewTestament provide a united connection of tradition.“249 Heshares with Gese the opinion of a late development of the OTcanon. He even suggests that the development of the Mas-oretic canon was concluded only after the Bar Kochba revoltof A.D. 135.250 Thus while both scholars disagree on the matterof the “center,” they share a largely common view about thetradition-building process and the late closing of the OTcanon, both of which are foundational for a “formation-of-tradition” theology.

The Gese-Stuhlmacher model of theology “as formation of

245. Ibid.246. Ibid., p. 317.247. I? Stuhlmacher, “Nachkritische Schriftauslegung,” in Was ist 10s mit

der deutscben TbeoJogie?Antworten auf eine Anfiage, ed. H. N. Janowski andE. Stammler (Tubingen, 1978), pp. 59-65; idem, Vom Versteben des NT EineHermeneuttk (Gijttingen, 1979), pp. 228, 243f.

248. Ibid., p. 228.249. Ibid., p. 244.250. Ibid., pp. 228f.


tradition” has provoked a number of reaction@* that have ledto lively interchanges. Stuhlmacher252 is charged with soften-ing a rigorous use of the historical-critical method and itsimplications by E. Grasser2ss and for not going far enough inhis revision of historical criticism by H. Lindner, R. Sturm,and G. Maier.254 It is to be noted, however, that Stuhlmacherdoes not consider his “synthetic biblical theology of the NewTestament” as simply a descriptive historical enterprise. Henotes emphatically that “the theology of the New Testamentas also the theology of the Old Testament is not simply anhistorical discipline.“255 The rejection of the basic premisethat either OT theology or NT theology is but a historicalenterprise is also maintained recently by various scholars whohave entered the debate on the nature of OT theology, NTtheology, and Biblical theology. 2s6 Today the foundational dis-

251. Particularly important are those by H.-J. Kraus, “Probleme undPerspektiven Biblischer Theologie, ” in Bibliscbe Theologie heute, pp. 97-124;idem, “Theologie als Traditionsbildung? Zu Hartmut Gese, ‘Irom Sinai zumZion’,” EvT 36 (1976), 498-507; H. H. Schmid, “Unterwegs zu einer neuenBiblischen Theologie? Anfragen an die von H. Gese und I? Stuhlmacher vor-getragenen Entwiirfe Biblischer Theologie, ” in Bibliscbe Tbeologie heute, pp.75-95; W. Schmithals, “Schriftauslegung auf dem Wege zur Biblischen Theo-logie. Kritische Anmerkungen zu einem Buch von Peter Stuhlmacher,” Re-formietie Kircbenzeitung, 117 (1976), 282-285.

252. Stuhhnacher, Historical Criticism and Theological Interpretation ofScripture, pp. 66-71; idem, Vom Versteben des NT pp. 216-218; idem,“Biblische Theologie und kritische Exegese,” Tbeologiscbe Beitmge, 8 (1977)88-90; idem, “Hauptprobleme und Chancen kirchlicher Schriftauslegung,”Tbeologiscbe Beitrtige, 9 (1978), 53-69.

253. E. Grlsser, “Offene Fragen im Umkreis einer Biblischen Theologie,”Znc 77 (1980) 200-221; I? Stuhlmacher, “. in verrosteten Angeln,” m,77 (1980), 222-238. Another reaction comes from A. H. J. Gunneweg, “‘Theo-logic’ des AT oder ‘Biblische Theologie’?” in Textgemass, ed. A. H. J. Gun-neweg and 0. Kaiser, pp. 38-46. See also W. Schmithals (above, n. 251).

254. G. Maier, “Einer biblischen Hermeneutik entgegen? Zum Gesprachmit I? Stuhlmacher und H. Lindner,” Tbeologiscbe Be&-age, 8 (1977), 148-160;H. Lindner, “Widerspruch oder Vermittlung1” Tbeologiscbe Beitmge, 7 (1976),185-197; R. Sturm, Xkzente zum Gespmch,” Tbeologiscbe Be&age, 8 (X977),37f.

255. Stuhlmacher, I‘. in verrosteten Angeln,” p. 234.256. Gunneweg, “ ‘Theologie’ des AT oder ‘Biblische Theologie’?” p. 45;

Wagner, “ ‘Biblische Theologien’ und ‘Biblische Theologie’,” pp. 794ff. G. Sieg-wah, “Biblische Theologie als Begriff und Vollzug,” KuD, 11 (1979) 254-272.


tinction of the Gabler-Wrede-Stendahl approach of “what itmeant” and “what it means” has been seriously, if not irrep-arably, eroded, and may actually be rejected. R. E. Clementscalls now from perspectives of his own that OT theologyshould not be “a subordinate branch of the historical criticismof the Old Testament, it should be regarded properly as abranch of theology. “257 If this be the case, then serious ques-tions are raised about the whole Gese-Stuhlmacher model ofBiblical theology “as formation of tradition” within and be-tween the Testaments.25s

The “formation-of-tradition” model of OT theology as con-ceived by Gese (not by Stuhlmacher) seeks to overcome theissue of the “center” of the Testaments through a process oftradition common to both Testaments. This model iscountered by all those who use a “center” approach to Biblicaltheology. More specifically it has been objected that Gesetransforms “theology into a phenomenology of tradition his-tory” built upon an entirely new ontology.2sg S. Wagner notesthat the process of the formation of tradition is not identicalin both Testaments and that it is therefore not appropriate toconsider the Testaments as belonging together on the basis ofthe assumption of a unified process of tradition-building.sssDouglas A. Knight states categorically that the “tradition-historical method cannot be used to explain the essential rela-tjonship between the Old Testament and the New Testament.”The reason for this is that within the OT “this growth process

257. Clements, OT Theology, p. 191.258. H. Graf Reventlow, “Der Konflikt zwischen Exegese und Dogmatik.

Wilhelm Vischers Ringen urn den ‘Christus im AT’,” in Textgemiiss, p. 122,notes incisively that the central task of a future Biblical theology is to workout the tension between exegesis and dogmatics, a tension which is seen asa basic and unresolved problem.

259. Kraus, “Theologie als Traditionsbildung?” in Bibliscbe Tbeologieheute, pp. 67-73; also Schmid, “Unterwegs zu einer neuen Biblischen Theo-logie,” in Bibliscbe Tbeologie heute, p. 77.

260. Wagner, “‘Biblische Theologien’ und ‘Biblische Theologie’,” p. 793.See the decisive questions about the continuity of the tradition-buildingprocess claimed by Gese in the analysis of W. Zimmerli, “Von der Giiltigkeitder ‘S&rift’ AT in der christlichen Predigt,” in Textgemtiss, pp. 193f.


reached an end in the various tradition complexes, books, andlarger works; and in virtually this form they were eventuallycanonized.“2s*

The approach of Gese has found at least one supporter inHorst Seebass. His attempt to reach from the OT into the NThas caused some significant reactions.2ss It remains to be seenwhat directions the discussion will take and whether this newapproach will remain strong enough to attract other supporters.

Manfred Oeming’s dissertation, “Total Biblical Theologiesof Today: The Relationship of the OT and NT in the Her-meneutical Discussion since Gerhard von Rad,” is of greatweight.2s4 He indicated that Gese has deep roots in the pro-gram of von Rad and shows beyond this that Gese is heavilyindebted as well to such philosophers as Hegel, the laterHeidegger, and particularly H.-G. Gadamer.265 Oeming reachesa conclusion identical to that of Groves on von Rad and otherswhom we have just discussed in relation to the “diachronic”methodology of von Rad in the previous pages. Oeming’sanalysis of the Gese approach has led him to state bluntly inhis summary that “the alleged unity of the Biblical traditionclaimed by Gese is historically unsupportable.“266 This is atough judgment and raises many issues. Can such a sup-

261. Knight, Rediscovering the Tknfitions of Ismel, p. 139.262. See Horst Seebass, “Biblische Theologie,” Vertindigung und For-

scbung, 27 (1982), 28-45, esp. 34-35; idem, Der Gott der ganzen Bibel.Bibliscbe Tbeologie zur Orientierung im GJauben (Freiburg/Basel/Vienna,1982), pp. 15-33.

263. See, e.g., I? Stuhlmacher, “Biblische Theologie als Weg der Erkennt-nis Gottes,” in Einheit und vielfalt Bibliscber Theologie, ed. I. Baldermann etal. (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 19861, pp. 91-114. Seebass responded under the title“Gerechtigkeit Gottes. Zum Dialog mit Peter Stuhlmacher,” in Einheit undVieJfaJt Bibliscber Tbeologie, pp. 115-134.

264. Manfred Oeming, Gesamtbibliscbe TbeoJogien der Gegenwart; Dasverhiiltnis vom AT und NT in der henneneutiscben Diskussion seit Gerbardvan Rad (Stuttgart, 1985). See the critical review by H. Graf Reventlow, “Bib-lische Theologie auf historisch-kritischer Grundlage. Zu einem neuen Buchvon Manfred Oeming,” in Einheit und Vielfalt Bibliscber ‘Dreologie, ed.I. Baldermann et al. (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1986), pp. 201-209.

265. Oeming, Gesamtbibliscbe Tbeologien, pp. 108-110.266. Ibid., p. 115.


posedly unsupportable historical basis be enough for a the-ology of the OT? Or can such a theology reach beyond the OTeven into the present? The debate over this issue will noteasily be exhausted in the near future.

Inasmuch as the Gese-Stuhlmacher proposals are dependenton the theory of the late closing of the OT canon at Jamnia (orlater for Stuhlmacher) and the supposition of an extensivereduction of material in the process of canonization,2s7 a periodfor the closing of the OT canon by the time of Christ268 or earlier,even much earlier as argued by D. N. Freedman,269 S. Z. Lei-man,270 and B. S. Childs,271 decisively undercuts the centralthesis of the Gese-Stuhlmacher traditio-historical Biblical the-ology program. Furthermore, it may be asked whether this ap-proach is actually Biblical theology or theology of tradition-building. Can the tradition-building process claim to have at itsvarious reconstructed stages canonical or Scriptural-Biblicalstatus?272 The designation OT or Biblical theology may be amisnomer. A more appropriate designation for the so-calledformation-of-tradition theology would be a “history of tradition-building and its theology.” A Biblical or OT theology turned intoa phenomenology of tradition-building processes273 is said tofind continuity and unity no longer in the same God274 but in acertain ontology of continuing processes of life.

267. Gese, “Tradition and Biblical Theology,” p. 323; idem, “Zur bib-lischen Theologie,” pp. 11-13; idem, Vom Sinai zum Zion, pp. 16f.;Stuhlmacher, Vom Verstehen des Nz: p. 228.

268. Knight, Rediscovering the Traditions of IsmeJ, p. 140.269. D. N. Freedman, “Canon of the OT,” IDB Supplement (1976), pp.

130-136.270. S. Z. Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture (Hamden, CT,

1976).271. B. S. Childs, Introduction to the OT as Scripture (Philadelphia,

1979), pp. 62-67, 667-669.272. A. H. J. Gunneweg, Vom Viu-steben des AT Eine Hermeneutik

(Gottingen, 1977), pp. 163f., notes that in Gese’s rejection of the Masoreticcanon as binding for the Christian (Gese, “Erwagungen zur Einheit der bib-lischen Theologie,” p. 16), Gese becomes “more canonical than the canon.”

273. Kraus, “Theologie als Traditionsbildung?” p. 66.274. See W. Zimmerli, Xlttestamentliche Traditionsgeschichte und


G. The Thematic-Dialectical Method. We have seen that thediachronic method and the subsequent “formation-of-tradition”method are closely related to each other. Both are deeply depen-dent upon the traditio-historical method, although eachdevelops its own approach. The method now under discussionis a post-Eichrodt and equally a post-von Rad method. It surfacedonly in the latter part of the 1970s but has found already anardent supporter. W. Brueggemanns7s has suggested that there isa new convergence in recent OT theology that in his view pointsto a resolution of the methodological stalemate. This conver-gence is evident in approaches to OT (and Biblical) theology thatuse a dialectical and thematic relationship. He cites particularlythe work of three prominent scholars: S. Terrien,276 C. Wester-mann,277 and Paul Hanson.278 These three scholars suggest agoverning dialectic of “ethic/aesthetic” (Terrien), “deliver-ance/blessing” (Westermann), and “teleological/cosmic” (Han-son). The convergence is evident in that each scholar uses adialectic; the divergence is equally evident in that each oneemploys a different dialectic. Let us consider first the approachof S. Terrien.

The magnum opus of a lifetime of study by Terrien is basedon the programmatic thesis that “the reality of the presenceof God stands at the center of biblical faith.“279 He argues that

Theologie,” in Probleme bibliscber Theologie, pp. 631-647; idem, OT Theologyin Outhe (Atlanta, 1978), pp. 13-15; and above, n. 260.

275. W. Brueggemann, “A Convergence in Recent OT Theology,” JSOT,18 (1980), 2-18. A very similar essay in content by Brueggemann appearedas “Canon and Dialectic,” in God and His Temple. Reflections on ProfessorSamuel Terrien’s The Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology, ed.L. E. Fiizzell (S. Grange, NJ, 1981), pp. 20-29.

276. S. Terrien, l%e Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology(New York, 1978).

277. C. Westermann, Theologie des ATin Grundztigen (Gottingen, 1978),trans. Elements of OT Theology (Atlanta, 1982).

278. Paul Hanson, Dynamic Transcendence (Philadelphia, 1978). See alsoHanson’s essay “The Responsibility of Biblical Theology to Communities ofFaith,” 77bday 37 (1980), 39-50. His book ‘Ifre Diversity of Scripture: A Theo-logical Interpretation (OBT, 11; Philadelphia, 1982) continues to develop thetwin polarities he sees in Scripture.

279. Terrien, Elusive Presence, p. xxvii.


“the motif of [divine] presence is primary”280 and challengesnot only the primacy of the covenant motif, but also that ofthe communion concept.281 For Terrien “the rite and ideologyof covenant are dependent upon the prior reality of pres-ence.“282 He puts it succinctly as follows: “It is the Hebraictheology of presence . . . that constitutes the field of forceswhich links . . . the fathers of Israel, the reforming prophets,the priests of Jerusalem, the psalmists of Zion, the Jobian poet,and the bearers of the gospel.“2s3 This means that the “motifof divine presence” is seen as a dynamic “principle of coher-ence”284 or of continuity and unity within the OT and betweenthe Testaments. The presence of God is certainly not staticand fixed, but “elusive and unpredictable”28s and manifests“growth and transformation.“28s He also conceives his “newbiblical theology” as “a prolegomenon to an ecumenical the-ology of the Bible,” because the unifying and yet dynamicprinciple of the presence of God “unites Hebraism and largeaspects of Judaism with nascent Christianity.“287

Terrien has provided the first one-volume Biblical theologyin the post-von Rad era that moves from the OT directly onto the NT. He has achieved a dialectic cross-section throughthe NT in but sixty pages288 whereas the theology of the OTdevours six times as much space. The theology of the patri-archal traditions about Abraham and Jacob are followed bythe Sinai theophanies and the presence in the temple. Thenfollow chapters on the prophetic vision, the psalmody ofpresence, and wisdom theology. The final epiphany coversthe Sabbath, the Day of Atonement, and the day of Yahweh.Two chapters are devoted to the NT, treating “Presence as the

280. Ibid., 3.p.281. Cf. Th. C. Vriezen, Outbne of OT Theology, p. 351.282. Terrien, Elusive Presence, p. 26.283. Ibid., 31.p.284. Ibid., 5.p.285. Ibid., 27.p.286. Ibid., p. 31.287. Ibid., pp. 475f.288. Ibid., pp. 410-470.


Word” with emphasis on annunciation, transfiguration, resur-rection, and “The Name and the Glory.”

Terrien’s argument is forceful and his achievement is sig-nificant. He argues that the pursuit of the presence theme“will occupy biblical theologians for the next decade,” becauseit is a “shift of emphasis from covenant to presence.“289 If onegrants that the presence theme is a major Biblical motif, andfew would wish to doubt it, one would still have to askwhether it is broad enough to encompass the richness andvariety of all the expressions of faith in the OT and beyondthat in the NT. That this question has to be raised is inevitablein view of the dialectical argument presented in The ElusivePresence, i.e., a dialectical dynamic which has been describedas the dialectic of “ethical/aesthetic.“290 The “ethical” aspectof the dialectic is presented in the historical-covenantal mate-rials and the “aesthetic” in the wisdom and psalmic materials.The latter are not so much concerned with demands, duty,and responsibility as they are with the emotional, mystical,and spiritual,291 or simply with beauty. This field of forces isheld together by the dynamic and unifying principle of theelusive presence of God.

The proposals of Terrien have found a forceful supporterin Walter Brueggemann,292 who proposes the dialectic “of‘providence/election’ which itself bespeaks an important ten-sion.“293 This larger category, which is said to encompass thethree former dialectical categories of Westermann, Terrien,and Hanson, reveals first of all that Terrien’s dialectic and thetheme of the elusive presence are too narrow. Indeed, Terrienadmits to selectivity and of not being bound to be exhaus-

289. S. Terrien, “The Pursuit of a Theme,” in God and His Temple, p. 72.290. Brueggemann, “Canon and Dialectic,” pp. 20-22; idem, “A Conver-

gence in Recent OT Theology,” pp. 4-6.291. Terrien, Elusive Presence, pp. 278, 422, 449.292. In addition to his essays already mentioned (see above, n. 275), see

“The Crisis and Promise of Presence in Israel,” HBT, 1 (1979),47-86, and hisreview of The Elusive Presence in JBL, 99 (1980), 296-300, repr. in God andHis Temple, pp. 30-34.

293. Brueggemann, “Canon and Dialectic,” p. 25.


tive.2g4 Second, no single dialectic is able to encompass thetotality of the content of the Biblical writings. Thus whilesingle-centered approaches to Biblical theology are inade-quate, dual-dialectical approaches are helpful but unable toovercome the problem of the richness of the Biblical materials.

More recently Brueggemann seems to have altered thebipolar dialectic of “providence/election” in favor of a morecomprehensive bipolar dialectic. In two articles published in1985 he advances his new proposals for OT theology.295 Hecontinues to maintain as he did previously that the purelydescriptive approach of a “what it meant” program for OTtheology is inadequate. 296 His concept of bipolarity is to “re-flect the central tension of the literature.” At one pole is thetension of “how we got the text,” which is linked to and partof “the process and character of the text. ‘2g7 The emphasis is“in the fray” in the sense of how the social processes shapedthe text. He is heavily dependent in this understanding onNorman Gottwald’s sociological-literary approach to theOT.298 To everyone’s surprise, on the other pole Brueggemannseeks to be “above the fray” by following Brevard S. Childs,for whom the “canonical approach” is all- important, becausethe text that matters for theology is the one that has receivedcanonical status. Brueggemann summarizes: “The b&polar

294. Terrien, “The Pursuit of a Theme,” p. 73.295. Walter Brueggemann, “A Shape for OT Theology, I: Structure Legiti-

mation,” CBQ, 47 (1985), 28-46; idem, “A Shape for OT Theology, II: Embraceof Pain,” CBQ, 47 (1985), 395-415. See also his earlier article, “Futures in OTTheology,” HB?: 6 (1984), l-11.

296. Brueggemann states unabashedly that the “meant” approach ofK. Stendahl in the sense of historical description means that “this objectivityof historical description is too often found to be a mirror of the observer’shidden preunderstanding, and the adequacy of historical description is con-tingent on one generation’s discoveries and postulates” (p. x in the SeriesForeword in Paul Hanson, The Diversity of Scripture [OBT, 11; Philadelphia,19821).

297. Brueggemann, “A Shape, I,” p. 30.298. See particularly Norman Gottwald, The 7Hbes of Yahweh (Mary-

knoll, 1979), to which Brueggemann makes explicit reference. Now we canalso take under consideration the more advanced work by Gottwald, TheHebrew Bible: A Socio-Literary Introduction (Philadelphia, 1985).


construct I suggest is that OT faith serves both to legitimatestructure and to embmce pairs.” He states his thesis in thefollowing words: “OT theology fully partakes in ‘the commontheology’ of its world and yet struggles to be free of that sametheology.“299 The notion of “common theology” needs to beunderstood in the special sense in which it is used. MortonSmith has used this expression for the common theology ofthe entire ancient Near East of which the theology of ancientIsrael was a (not unique) part.ss’J Brueggemann takes the ex-pression to mean (in dependence on Smith) a “set of standardassumptions and claims of religion that are pervasive in theancient Near East and are shared in the literature of ancientIsrael.“3a1 The concept of “in the fray” reflects the pole ofsocial forces that are said to shape the Biblical text in the sameway as any other text from the ancient world was shaped, and“above the fray” is the pole of the canonical form of the textwhich has theological meaning or is given theological mean-ing for modern communities of faith. The dual polarity of “inthe fray” and “above the fray” seems to be a recasting of thepolarity of “what it meant” and “what it means.” Brueggemannsees the pole of “structure legitimation” in tension with thecounterpole of “pain embracing.” This tension is “an ongoingtension, unresolved and unresolvable,” and it “must be keptalive in all faithful biblical theology.“302

Brueggemann made this proposal before Brevard S. Childspublished his own OT theology.303 In this book Childs statedclearly that he sees his work in contradistinction to variousapproaches, including the one of Gottwald. Gottwald’s socio-logical approach receives a remark that is worth pondering:“Gottwald’s attempt to replace biblical theology with biblical

299. Brueggemann, “A Shape, I,” pp. 30-31.300. Morton Smith, “The Common Theology of the Ancient Near East,”

]EL 71 (1952), 135-147.301. Brueggemann, “A Shape, II,” p. 395 n. 46.302. Ibid., p. 414.303. Brevard S. Childs, OT Theology in a Canonical Context (London,

1985; Philadelphia, 1986).


sociology by offering examples of his method of demytholo-gizing the tradition only illustrates the high level of reduction-ism at work.“304 In Gottwald’s approach, as Childs analyzesit, there is no place for the traditional concept of revelation,because Gottwald’s hermeneutical stance “reads the biblicaltext as a symbolic expression of certain underlying primarysocial realities which he seeks to uncover by means of acritical sociological analysis. “305 The Bible gives testimony tothe divine reality that breaks into human history in many andvaried ways, but a sociological reading of the texts “rendersthe uniquely biblical witness mute,” thus leading to a “mas-sive theological reductionism.“306 The vertical dimension issubsumed under the horizontal and thus “muted,” but forChilds “revelation is integral to the task of Old Testamenttheology. “307 We will be able to investigate the “new Biblicaltheology” method of Childs later in this chapter and need toturn now to another giant of OT theology whose work employsyet another bipolar dialectic.

The eminent University of Heidelberg professor C. Wester-mann published his long announced Theologie des AT inGrundziigen in 1978 (translated as Elements of OT Theologyin 1982). Although it is not as extensive as the tomes of otherscholars such as W. Eichrodt, Th. C. Vriezen, G. von Rad, andS. Terrien, it takes its place among these works.

Westermann’s book is divided into six parts. The first one isentitled “What Does the OT Say About God?’ After a succinctsection on methodology, the topic is treated under the headingsof history (Geschichte), word of God in the OT, the response ofman, and God’s unity as possibility of interrelationship.

Westermann sees the task of OT theology as a summarizingand a viewing together of what the whole OT has to say aboutGod. This means for him that it is illegitimate to elevate one

304. Ibid., p. 25.305. Ibid., p. 24.306. Ibid., p. 25.307. Ibid.


part of the OT to a status of being most important or tointerpret the whole on the basis of such concepts as covenant,election, or salvation. To raise the question of the center ofthe OT means also to go astray, because the OT does notmanifest such a centering structure. In this respect it is dif-ferent from the NT, which centers in the life, death, andresurrection of Christ.

It is argued that *a presentation of what the OT has to sayabout God as a whole has to begin with the recognition thatthe OT narrates a history in the sense of happening (Gesche-hen). Here Westermann follows explicitly G. von Rad and histraditio-historical approach, 308 but refuses to follow von Rad’sprinciple of “re-telling” because the constant words of Godthat enter Israel’s life bring about a human response or answer.Thus the OT functions in the dialectic of divine addressmanifested in manifold acts and words and man’s responseevidenced also in words and deeds. History (Geschichte) thusinvolves both God and man.

Westermann informs his readers that OT wisdom literaturehas no place in this basic structure of OT theology, “since itoriginally and in reality does not have as its object an occur-rence between God and man.“309 The theological place of OTwisdom is to be seen in connection with the creation of manand his ability to understand and find his way in the world.Whereas von Rad viewed wisdom as part of Israel’s answerto God, Westermann follows W. Zimmerli in arguing that thetheological place of wisdom is within the framework of man’screation.310 Thus Westermann shares with his German pred-ecessors the problem of how to incorporate “wisdom” prop-erly into an OT theology. As it stands Westermann has no realplace for wisdom theology.

The second part discusses the God that saves and history,

308. Westermann, lsleorogie des AT in Gnmdziigen (Giittingen, 1978),p. 5; trans. Elements of OT 7bology (Atlanta, 1982) and cited respectively asTATG and EO7-Z

309. lXl’G, p. 7; EOTI: p. 11.310. E47G, pp. 7, 85f.; Em pp. llf., 100-101.


which is presented under the rubrics of the meaning, process,and elements of God’s saving activity. The third part dealswith Creator and creation and also with blessing. This isfollowed by a fourth part in which the correlation of divinejudgment and divine mercy, particularly in prophecy of bothwoe and weal, is expounded.

A brief section on apocalyptic deals with such texts as Isa.24-27; Zech. 1-8; 12-14; Isa. 66; Joel 24; and the book ofDaniel. Westermann states categorically, “The emergence ofapocalyptic from wisdom is impossible.“311 He thus opposesoutrightly the unilinear development of apocalyptic from wis-dom for which G. von Rad had argued so forcefully. Apoca-lyptic receives “its theological aspect in its position withinGod’s plan in which the history of humankind is predeter-mined.“312 In contrast to OT prophecy apocalyptic contains aconception of world history of cosmic dimensions whichcorresponds to primeval history.

The fifth part contains the human response side of thedialectic of divine address and human response. The responsemanifests itself in prayer, praise, and lamentation. Spokenresponse is followed by acted response in obedience to com-mandment and law, in worship and theological reflection,including the theological interpretation of history by theYahwist, Deuteronomists, and the Priestly writing. Nothing issaid about an Elohist or his theology.

The final part is entitled “The OT and Jesus Christ.” Thissubject is divided into sections on historical books and Christ,prophetic proclamation and Christ, and Christ and the answerof Gods people.

The concluding paragraphs raise the question of a Biblicaltheology. In contrast to earlier times of historical-critical re-search it is argued that “a biblical theology is a necessity forthe incipient ecumenical era of the Christian churches.“313

311. Ibid., p. 132.312. Ibid., p. 133.313. TATG, p. 205; EOT?; p. 232.


Westermann envisions such a Biblical theology as being pre-sented along the lines of a historical structure correlated tothe relationship between God and man. This means that thehistorical structure consists of testimonies about God in boththe OT and NT. It is suggested that on this foundation aBiblical theology of’both OT and NT can be produced.

It is evident that Westermann’s approach is thoroughly form-critical and follows in one basic aspect the traditio-historicalapproach of G. von Rad. In the other basic aspect Westermanndeparts from von Rad’s approach by emphasizing also a system-atic aspect, which he recognizes in the OT’s witness (speaking)about God. The latter is that which is constant in the OT, whilethe historical aspect provides variableness.

As we compare the works of Terrien and Westermann wenote first of all that Terrien is the one who profoundly chal-lenges the widespread and broadly supported theme of thecovenant. It remains to be seen whether the presence themewill unseat the covenant theme as the dominant OT motif.Westermann, on the contrary, while following broadly thetheme of blessing to which he had given attention in earlierstudies314 and seeing it in dialectic with deliverance, is “notsingularly concerned with the development of the dialectic ofblessing and deliverance.“315 Of the two books, one would betempted to suggest that the one by Terrien is more successful.

H. Recent “Critical” OT Theology Methods. Some scholars.have recently attempted not to write OT theologies but toreflect about the future of OT theology and argue for a renewalof “critical” approaches to OT theology. James Barr and John J.Collins, whose approaches will receive brief attention in whatfollows, share the perception that OT theology does not seemto have too bright a future.

James Barr is a major Biblical scholar with a keen and com-

314. See particularly C. Westermamr, Blessing in the Bible and the Lifeof the Church (Philadelphia, 1978) and his English version of an aspect ofhis OT theology in somewhat different form under the title What Does theOT Say About God? (Atlanta, 1979).

315. Brueggemann, “Convergence in OT Theologies,” p. 3.


prehensive perception of contemporary Biblical studies. Amonghis many writings about a dozen relate to various major issuesof Biblical theology. His teaching career on two continents andhis knowledge of major European languages has provided basictools for his interest in interpretation, philology, semantics,canon, and biblical authority; he has even presented a bitingattack on so-called fundamentalism.31s Barr stands in thescholarly tradition of solid modern historical criticism, rejectinghistorical views of inspiration and biblical authority.

Barr has not provided as yet an all-inclusive presentationof his view of Biblical theology or OT theology and he ishardly expected to produce one. He is among those scholarswho see a dim future for OT theology or Biblical theology.Barr recently stated that scholarship is moving away from OTtheology, because the subject is too difficult to achieve andthe new paradigms for the study of the OT or Bible, such asstructuralism and literary approaches, are not “theological” inthe expected sense. He is also concerned about the conceptionof a Jewish Biblical theology, the issue which we have dis-cussed at the beginning of this chapter.

A number of previous essays and books describe variousaspects of the modern Biblical theology and its advances over“the older biblical theology movement.” Whereas BrevardChilds announced the latter’s demise in 1970, Barr merelycriticized the “older biblical theology” and spoke of “the heal-ing of its wounds.“317 He argued for a “multiple approach,“318

316. James Barr, Old and New in Intezpretation: A Study of the Y&oTestaments (LondoniNew York, 1966); idem, Comparative Philology and theText of the OT (London, 1968; rev. ed. 1987); idem, The Semantics of BiblicalLanguage (London, 1961); idem, Biblical Words for Time (SBT, l/33; London,1962; rev. ed. 1969); idem, The Scope andAuthority of the Bible (Philadelphia,1983); idem, Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism (Philadelphia, 1983);idem, Fundamentalism (London, 1977; 2nd ed. 1981); idem, Beyond Fh-damentalism (Philadelphia, 1984). Note the incisive reaction of DonaldGuthrie, “Biblical Authority and NT Scholarship,” &IX Evangelica, 16 (1986),7-23, esp. 12-18.

317. James Barr, JR, 56 (1976), 17.318. James Barr, Z’heologV Digest, 24 (1976), 271.


and insisted recently that “theology cannot simply be read offfrom the [biblical] text as it stands: . . . theology does stand‘behind’ the text.“319 He has engaged in an extensive attack320against the “canonical approach’ of Childs and in favor of thetraditio-historical approach (cf. G. von Rad, H. Gese) and aliterary understanding of the Bible as “story.”

At the risk of oversimplification and in view of Barr’s recentdoubts regarding the direction of OT theology, we may bringtogether several points from his various writings in what wemay call his “synthetic modern biblical theology” (his desig-nation). (1) It is to be descriptive and also theological withoutbeing prescriptive or normative. (2) It is to be based on theprocess of historical-critical exegesis, standing between exege-sis and systematic theology. (3) It is to be done in solidaritywith the whole range of modern historical-critical Biblicalscholarship. (4) It is to be undertaken with a historical andliterary reading of the Bible which contains such categoriesas myth, legend, allegory, story, etc. (5) Its sources are thecanonical books of the Bible, the traditions that lie behindthem, and the documents of Near Eastern religions and cul-tures. (6) It is to be an amalgamation of history-of-religions,literary, and theological approaches. (7) It is to be groundedin the traditio-historical approach, finding its right proportionalso in relation to other adjacent disciplines. (a) It is to be

319. James Barr, “The Literal, the Allegorical, and Modern BiblicalScholarship,” ISOT, 44 (1989), 14.

320. His book Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism, particularlypp. 75-104, 139-171, is intended to be seen in that way. While it is based onthe James Sprunt Lectures of 1982 and was published in 1983 and thus cannotreflect on the mature work of Childs as expressed in his OT 7heologV in aCanonical Context (London, 1985; Philadelphia, 1986), it nevertheless is anall-out refutation of Childs’s proposals. Unfortunately, while Barr is aware ofsome distinctions between Childs and James A. Sanders’ “canonical criti-cism,” he ascribes to Childs “canonical criticism,” a designation which Childsrejects for what he himself designates to be his “canonical approach.” SeeE A. Spina, “Canonical Criticism: Childs versus Sanders,” in InterpretingGod’s Word for Today: An Inquiry into Hermeneutics from a Biblical TheologyPerspective, ed. J. E. Hartley and R. Larry Shelton (Wesleyan TheologicalPerspectives, 2; Anderson, IN, 1982), pp. 165-194.


built on the recognition that the OT is basically “story” whichmay contain some history without being necessarily historicalin the sense of “factual.” (9) The distinctiveness of the religionof Israel is not God’s action in history, but the idea of one Godagainst other gods. (10) Biblical theology calls for a “multipleapproach” because of the variety of perspectives to be incor-porated and the disparity of theologies present in the OT (andNT). (11) The OT does not manifest a single “center” (withvon Rad), but contains various “centers.” (12) If Biblical the-ology is to thrive there must be “some theological flexibilityand the need for free scholarly exploration of the Bible.“321(12) “Theology cannot simply be read off from the [Biblical]text as it stands: , . . theology does stand ‘behind the text.“322

This conspectus of what seem to be several of Barr’s majorideas on the future of an OT “synthetic modern biblical the-ology” does not provide every nuance of his extensive argumen-tations. Paul R. Wells has suggested in his dissertation thatBarr is a representative of a well-defined neo-liberalism.323Another dissertation recently argued that Barr’s own perspec-tives actually do not allow him to construct a Biblical theology,and that a theology that has a basis in the Bible will carry theimprint of various aspects of the use of the Bible within the.communities of faith.324 Up to the present it appears that Barris vehemently opposed to the latter aspect as being part ofBiblical theology.

Various methods, movements, and scholarly directionshave had a profound influence upon him. At one point hewas sympathetic to the directions outlined by Childs, but in

321. See James Barr, “The Theological Case against Biblical Theology,”in Canon, Theology, and OT Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Brevard S.Childs, ed. Gene M. Tucker, David L. Petersen, and Robert R. Wilson(Philadelphia, 1988), p. 17.

322. Barr, “The Literal, the Allegorical, and Modern Biblical Scholar-ship,” p. 14.

323. Paul Ronald Wells, James Barr and the Bible: Critique of a NewLiberalism (Phillipsburg, NJ, 1980).

324. Nathaniel S. Murrell, “James Barr’s Critique of Biblical Theology:A Critical Analysis,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Drew University, 1988.


recent years he has leveled severe criticisms at him.325 Barris dependent on modern linguistics in the form of Frenchstructuralism (particularly Noam Chomsky), the study of theBible as literature (cf. Dietrich Ritschl and others), Paul Ri-coeur in hermeneutical issues, etc. In recent lectures andarticles Barr moves in the direction of “natural theology” aspart of the biblical witness. 32s It remains to be seen in whichdirection Barr will develop his thinking and whether this willmean that he continues as a protagonist for a further moveaway from OT theology and Biblical theology. For Barr afull-fledged commitment to historical criticism remains essen-tial in any enterprise.

John J. Collins has argued in a paper that OT and NTtheology are to be a part of a “critical biblical theology.“327 Hecomes back to a theme that had occupied him already a fewyears before328 but now with greater intensity and reflection.The adjective “critical” is particularly significant in this pro-posal. For Collins not only the “canonical approach” ofBrevard Childs, which we will discuss in the next section, butalso the approaches of G. E. Wright and even that of Gerhardvon Rad are still not critical enough. Both Wright andvon Rad, each in his own way, allowed “dogmatic convictionsto undercut its avowedly historical method.“329 Collins wishesto ground his “critical biblical theology” in a radical histori-

325. Barr, Holy Scriptures, pp. 130-171. Barr is seconded in his criticismsof the approach of Childs by John Barton, Reading the OT Method in BiblicalStudy (Philadelphia, 1984), pp. 79-193.

326. James Barr, “Mowinckel, the OT and the Question of Natural The-ology: The Second Mowinckel Lecture-Oslo, 27 November 1987,” StmfiaTheologica, 42 (1988), 21-38.

327. John J. Collins, “Is a Critical Biblical Theology Possible?,” in 7&eHebrew Bible and Its Interpreters, ed. William Henry Propp, Baruch Halpern,and David Noel Freedman (Winona Lake, IN, 1990), pp. 1-17. See also hisless reflective essay, “OT Theology,” in The Biblical Heritage in ModemCatholic Scholarship, ed. John J. Collins and John Dominic Crossan (Wihning-ton, 1986), pp. 11-33.

328. John J. Collins, “The ‘Historical’ Character of the OT in RecentBiblical Theology,” CBQ, 41 (1979). 185-204.

329. Collins, “Is a Critical Biblical Theology Possible?” p. 4.


Cal-critical approach which has no room for a fourth principle,such as the Peter Stuhlmacher’s “principle of consent.“330Collins does not wish to be open to the “language of transcen-dence” which would qualify or hold in check an unmitigatedfunctioning of the “principle of criticism” which he stronglydefends. He does not seem to be bothered by the fact that the“principle of criticism,” in the words of Edgar Krentz, “pro-duces only probabilities, a conclusion which raises questionsabout the certainty of faith and its object in theology.“331

Collins attempts to solve the issue of “facticity” and his-toricity through a paradigm shift to the literary notion of“story” along the lines of such literary critics as Robert Alterand Meir Sternberg. For Alter the sacred history of the Bibleshould be read as “prose fiction, “332 and Sternberg claims thatthe Bible contains fiction writing from a literary point ofview.333 The introduction of the category of “story” into Bib-lical theology suggests that we are no longer interested inhistorical accuracy. The category of significance in such anapproach is poetic imagination.334 The implication of thisshift from history to “story” means that “assertions about Godor the supernatural [in Scripture] are most easily explainedas rhetorical devices to motivate behavior,” but they havenothing to do with binding or normative truth or the like.3s5

Among the essential elements of Collins’s model of a “criti-cal biblical theology” are the following: (1) It is based uponthe presuppositions of the principles of criticism, analogy, andcorrelation essential for the functioning of the historical-

339. I? Stuhhnacher, Historical Criticism and TJteologicaJ Interpretationof Scripture (Philadelphia, 1977), pp. 88-89; idem, tim Kersteben des NT. EineHermeneutik (Giittingen, 1979), pp. 206-208.

331. Edgar Krentz, I&e Historical-Critical Method (Philadelphia, 19751,p. 57.

332. Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (Princeton, 1980) pp.23-40, as referred to by Collins, p. 10.

333. Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (Bloomington, IN,1987) p. 25.

334. Collins, “Is a Critical Biblical Theology Possible?” pp. 10-12.335. Ibid., p. 14.


critical method.336 (2) Any confessional aspect is to be deniedto a “critical biblical theology.” (3) It is to function as a sub-discipline of “historical theology.“337 (4) In another sense it ispart of a “narrative theology” or a “symbolic theology.“338 (5) Itis a functional theology in that it is to clarify “what claimsare being made, the basis on which they are made, and thevarious functions they serve.“33g (6) It is “based on somecanon of scripture” without any “qualitative difference overagainst other ancient literature but only a recognition of thehistorical importance of these texts within the tradition.“340

This model raises many questions. Why should this enter-prise still be called “biblical theology”? Why retain the term“biblical” when there is only appeal to “some canon of scrip-ture” without any qualitative difference to any ancient litera-ture? What does the word “some” in “some canon of scripture”mean? For a Catholic scholar, is the “canon” the RomanCatholic canon of Scripture, and for Jews and Protestants theJewish canon of Scripture, and for some others another canon?If different communities of faith use different canons of Scrip-ture, would this not introduce a “confessional” aspect into a“critical” Biblical theology and produce a dogmatic concep-tion? And this is what Collins wishes to avoid!

Furthermore, why should there be an appeal to “the his-torical importance of these texts within the tradition”? If suchan appeal is granted, then a “confessional” or “dogmatic” as-pect does seem to function in this enterprise too. And if thisis so, on what basis is this function of “tradition” differentfrom that of, say, the “canon”? This functional and criticalmodel will be expected to be assessed by students of Scriptureand OT theology in relationship to its methodological foun-dations, i.e., its linkage to both historical criticism in its radi-cal form and to literary paradigms, its functional intentional-ity, and its faithfulness to the nature and purpose of Scripture.

338. Ibid., pp. 2-3.337. Ibid., p. 9.338. Ibid., p. 12.339. Ibid., p. 13.340. Ibid., p. 8.


Another “critical’ approach to OT theology comes from thepen of Jesper Hogenhaven, whose concise book surveys sometrends in OT theology before it outlines his own approach.341 Heperceives the OT as “the national literature of an ancient NearEastern people.“342 This means that “historically, the OT mustbe interpreted within the context of the ancient Near Easternculture to which it belongs. The contrasts [to that culture], whichare certainly not to be overlooked, can from a historical point ofview only be of a relative nature.“343 It is to be expected on thisbasis that the author will argue against a centered approach fororganizing his proposed OT theology. Nevertheless, he suggestsa “theological centre” which “cannot be vindicated by exegeticalanalysis.” This “ ‘centre’ is in a certain sense the Christian gospel.Speaking in traditional terms, we may say that Jesus Christ is the‘scope’ of the entire Holy Scripture.“344 This too cannot bevalidated exegetically.345

Hsgenhaven’s proposals may be briefly summarized as fol-lows. (1) “Biblical theology . . . is a historical and descriptivediscipline rather than a normative and prescriptive one.“346No consideration is provided for the theological appropriationof the OT by communities of faith, whether Jewish or Chris-tian. (2) The discipline of Biblical theology “should be re-garded as an adjunct to biblical exegesis rather than dogmat-ics; and in this respect we are in agreement with thetheological tradition that has developed since the Enlighten-ment.“347 It is “the indispensable, concluding part of biblicalexegesis. “348 3 Biblical or OT theology “belongs to the realm( )of historical theology, not to systematic theology.“349 Thispoint has an affinity to the suggestion of Collins which we

341. Jesper Hsgenhaven, Problems and Prospects of OT Theology (TheBiblical Seminar; Sheffield, 1988).

342. Ibid., p. 88.343. Ibid., p. 89.344. Ibid., p. 91.345. Ibid.346. Ibid., p. 93.347. Ibid.348. Ibid., p. 94.349. Ibid., p. 93.


have just reviewed. (4) “The characteristic feature of biblicaltheology is its interest in major religious motifs and decisivelines of religious development in so far as they are suggestedin the biblical texts.“350 (5) OT theology is a part of this kindof Biblical theology and the latter has no concern whatsoeverwith the unity of the OT and NT.351 (6) “The purpose of an‘Old Testament theology’ is to present a summarizing descrip-tion of the most important motifs, themes, and problemswithin the literature of the OT. . . . [As such it] is a historicalundertaking, which presupposes . . . detailed exegesis . . .[and follows] a ‘historical’, diachronic, structure, rather thana ‘systematic’, or synchronic, cross-section.“352 (7) The litera-ture of the OT is to be divided into its major categories (notaccording to a chronological order), such as wisdom, psalmicliterature, narrative literature, law, and prophecy, and is to betreated according to form-critical and traditio-historical linesof research.353 In general and in summary, Hsgenhaven statesthat “as a historical discipline OT theology is dependent onthe current state of historical and exegetical research.“354

Hprgenhaven’s proposal evidently remains totally insensi-tive to the current interest in bridging the gap between thepast and the present. It remains solidly indebted to the much-disputed “what it meant” (Biblical theology) and “what itmeans” (systematic theology) distinction advocated by theGabler-Wrede-Stendahl model and actually revives it withoutany account of its current challenges, criticisms, and prob-lems.355 It is not a theological undertaking at all, because it

359. Ibid., p. 94.351. Ibid., p. 95. Hegenhaven’s suggestion that the unity issue is a matter

for “systematic theology” is in sharpest contrast to the view of H. Graf Re-ventlow, Problems of Biblical Theology in the rlt*entietb Century (Philadelphia,1986), pp. 10-144.

352. Ibid.353. Ibid., pp. 96-98.354. Ibid., p. 112.355. See K. Stendahl, “Biblical Theology: A Program,” in IDB, I (1962),

pp. 418-432, repr. in K. Stendahl, Meanings: The Bible as Document and asGuide (Philadelphia, 1984), pp. 11-44. Among the reactions against the “what

THE QUESTION OF METHODOLOGY 1 0 3

remains historical and descriptive in its conception and de-sign. Some may ask, Why is it called OT theology in the firstplace? Whatever one’s response may be, and even if one wereto think that hardly any new ground is broken here, this“critical” proposal reveals in its own way the divergence ofcurrent opinion on the nature, purpose, and function of OTtheology.

I. 7’he ‘New Biblical Theology” Method. We have noted timeand again that scholars have attempted to reach beyond theOT to the NT. This is evidenced by Th. C. Vriezen, C. Lehman,R. E. Clements, S. Terrien, C. Westermann, H. Gese, andothers. While none of these attempts is identical to another,there is nevertheless a strong trend, if not a slowly emergingconsensus, that the question of the relationship of the OT tothe NT is one of the most basic issues for Biblical scholarshipand OT theology.356

Without doubt the one scholar who in our generation haspointed time and again to a “new Biblical theology” is BrevardChilds. He proposed a “new Biblical theology” that is to over-come the dichotomy of “what it meant” and “what it means”357so rigorously applied by modern criticism.358 Childs’ “new

it meant” and “what it means” distinction are those of W. Brueggemann,“Futures in OT Theology,” HBI: 6 (1984), 1-2; David H. Kelsey, 7&e Uses ofScripture in Recent Theology (Philadelphia, 1975), pp. 202 n. 8; Avery Dulles,“Response to Krister Stendahl’s ‘Method in the Study of Biblical Theology,’ ”in The Bible in Modern ScholarsJrip, ed. J. P Hyatt (Nashville, 1985), pp.210-216; Ben C. Ollenburger, “What Krister Stendahl ‘Meant’-A NormativeCritique of ‘Descriptive Biblical Theology,“’ HBI: 8/l (1986), 61-98.

356. See the valuable aspects pointed out by J. Goldingay, Approachesto OTlnterpmtation (Downers Grove, 1981), pp. 29-37. Goldingay affirms that“for a Christian everything of which the OT speaks has to be seen in the lightof Christ. . , . But faith can only be Christian if it is built on the faith of theHebrew scriptures” (p. 37). He further states that “for a Christian to interpret‘the OT’ implies that he has a confessional stance in relation to it” (p. 33).

357. B. S. Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis (Philadelphia, 1979), pp.100, 141.

358. K. Stendahl, “Biblical Theology, Contemporary,” IDB, I, 418-432;idem, Method in the Study of Biblical Theology,” in 7&e Bible in ModernScholarship, ed. J. I? Hyatt (Nashville, 19653, pp. 196-208. For an assessment,see Hasel, NT Theology, pp. 136-139.


Biblical theology” claims to take seriously the canon of Scrip-ture as its context.359 Precisely stated, it is Childs’ “thesis thatthe canon of the Christian church is the most appropriatecontext from which to do Biblical Theology.” A most signifi-cant corollary of this thesis is that inasmuch as the Biblicaltext in its canonical form is employed as the context forinterpreting Scripture and doing Biblical theology, it amountsto “a rejection of the [historical-critical] method that wouldimprison the Bible within a context of the historical past.“360This stricture is directed toward such methods as those of thehistory of religions and comparative religion as well as literaryanalysis,361 by which is meant the whole enterprise of criticalanalysis leading up to and including the traditio-historicalmethod.362

It is immediately evident that Childs’ approach to Biblicaltheology and its definition is in strongest opposition to thediachronic method of G. von Rad and the “formation-of-tradition” method of H. Gese. The problem for Childs is thatmodern criticism “sets up an iron curtain between the pastand the present, it is an inadequate method for studying theBible as the church’s Scripture. “363 “To do Biblical Theologywithin the context of the canon involves acknowledgementof the normative quality of the Biblical tradition.“364 ThusChilds provided a broad outline of his conception of a “newBiblical theology,” pointing to a postcritical approach.

The idea of a Biblical Theology Movement as described byChilds and pronounced dead by the year 1963 has come underheavy attack, particularly by James D. Smart. Smart contests theexistence of a cohesive Biblical theology movement in Americaand defines a “biblical theologian” broadly as “anyone who isseriously investigating the theological content of any part of

359. Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis, pp. 99-106.360. Ibid., pp. 99f.361. Ibid., p. 98.362. B. S. Childs, Introduction to the OT as Scripture, pp. 74f.363. Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis, pp. 141f.364. Ibid., p. 100.


Scripture.“365 Thus “biblical theology” in the sense of concern-ing “itself with the theological contents of the Bible . . . must bedeclared to be nonexistent in this century, and the complicationsof scholarship having become so great in each of the Testaments,[that] we are unlikely to find even on the horizon a scholar whowould dare to embark in one work the theological contents ofthe whole of Scripture.“3w This statement was amazing even in1979 when there were already a significant number of scholars,from H. Gese and A. H. J. Gunneweg to B. S. Childs and S. Ter-rien, who called for, outlined, and attempted to present preciselysuch a Biblical theology. Smart himself does indeed see a futurefor Biblical theology, which remains a broad but ill-definedconcept, referring to anything that involves Biblical studies. Hethinks that this future is uncertain.367

Childs’ breathtaking Introduction to the OT as Scripture hasbeen both highly praised and severely criticized.368 Childsinforms us that after the publication of his earlier work in1970 he came to realize “that the groundwork had not as yetbeen carefully enough laid to support a [Biblical] theology ofboth testaments.” He remains convinced that a Biblical the-ology that covers both Testaments is virtually impossible aslong as the church’s Scripture is separated into two airtightcompartments.36g

Childs insists, against Gese370 and others, that only thecanonical form of the Biblical text is normative for Biblicaltheology.371 Against those who hold that canonization is but

365. J. D. Smart, The J&t, Present, and JUure of Biblical Theology(Philadelphia, 1979), p. 21.

366. Ibid., p. 20.367. Ibid., pp. 145-157. See B. S. Childs’ review of Smart’s book in ]I%

100 (1981), 252f.368. See, e.g., the extensive reviews and reactions of John F. Priest,

“Canon and Criticism: A Review Article,” IAAB, 48 (1980), 259-271; W. Har-relson in JBL, 100 (1981), 99-103; and S. E. McEvenue, “The OT, Scriptureor Theology?” Jnterp, 35 (1981), 229-243.

369. B. S. Childs, “A Response,” HBT 2 (1980), 199f.370. Gese, “Tradition and Biblical Theology,” p. 317.371. Childs, Introduction, pp. 76, 83.


a stage in the tradition-building process, as advocated invarious ways by Robert Lamin, James A. Sanders,373 andS. E. McEvenue,374 among others, Childs makes a sharp dis-tinction “between a pre-history and a post-history of the [Bib-lical] literature,“375 maintaining that the final form of theBiblical text is normative for Biblical theology.

The position which suggests that every stage in the tradi-tion-building process has the same right to authority as doesthe canonical form because access to OT revelation is“through the tradition and the tradition process”s7s iscountered by Childs. He writes, “This modern scholarlyconviction was not shared by the editors of the biblicalliterature, nor by the subsequent Jewish and Christian com-munities of faith.” Furthermore, “the whole intention in theformation of an authoritative canon was to pass theologicaljudgments on the form and scope of the literature.“377 Childsalso challenges forcefully the traditio-historical conceptionsof revelation as the process of tradition-building.378 Hestates, “It is only in the final form of the biblical text inwhich the normative history has reached an end that thefull effect of this revelatory history can be perceived.“s7gThese claims reveal that we are in a battle arena of thenature of revelation and authority,380 including the issue of

372. R. Laurin, “Tradition and Canon,” in Tmdition and Theology in theO’l: ed. D. A. Knight (Philadelphia, 1977), p. 272.

373. J. A. Sanders, “Canonical Context and Canonical Criticism,” HBT2 (1980), 193.

374. McEvenue, “The OT, Scripture or Theology?” hrterp, 35 (1981), 236f.,holds that “there is no single point of departure and no single final norm.”

375. Childs, ‘X Response,” p. 219.376. D. A. Knight, “Revelation through Tradition,” in lindition and The-

ologv in the 01: p. 162; idem, “Canon and the History of Tradition: A Critiqueof Brevard S. Childs’ Introduction to the OT as Scripture,” HBT 2 (1980),127-149.

377. Childs, “A Response,” p. 210.378. Knight, “Revelation through Tradition,” pp. 143-180.379. Childs, Introduction, p. 76.380. See R. Knierim, “Offenbanmg in-r AT,” in Probleme biblischer ‘Jheo-

logie, pp. 206-235; Knight, “Revelation through Tradition,” pp. 143-180; idem,


“levels of ‘canonicity .’ “381 For Childs, authority in the bind-ing sense has its locus in the canonical form of Scripture.The prehistory or posthistory of the text, the precanonicalor postcanonical developments, are not decisive as regardsthe normative value of the Bible as Scripture, even thoughthey are not excluded from consideration. Thus for Childsthe canonical approach and accordingly his proposed “newBiblical theology” assumes and is built upon “the normativestatus of the final form of the text.“382 This means, of course,that the historical context for interpreting the canonicalform of Scripture is replaced by the canonical context. Thisis a most decisive shift. Since Childs holds that Biblicaltheology is concerned with both Testaments,383 it followsthat the whole Biblical canon of both Testaments is thecontext for Biblical theology. This necessitates a rejectionof a “canon within the canon.“384 Does this mean too thatan approach to Biblical theology based upon a “center”(Mitte) is out of the question? Is a cross-section approachthrough the Testaments likewise ruled out? What about athematic-dialectical approach? Or, for that matter, what isthe proper approach and what organizational structure is tobe followed? It remains to be seen to what degree the pro-posals toward a Biblical theology made in his 1970 volumeremain valid for Childs.

It is within the purview of these questions that the rela-tionship of OT theology and NT theology to Biblical theologyneeds to be raised. Is OT theology a branch of Biblical the-ology? Is NT theology a branch of Biblical theology? If OTtheology and NT theology are historical and descriptive dis-

“Canon and the History of Tradition,” pp. 144-146; G. W. Coats and B. 0.Long, eds., Canon and Authority (Philadelphia, 1977).

381. This expression is from Peter R. Ackroyd, “Original Text andCanonical Text,” Union Seminary Quarterly Review, 32 (1977), 166-173, esp.171.

382. Childs, Introduction, p. 75.383. Childs, “A Response,” p. 199; idem, Biblical Theology in Crisis, pp.

101-103.384. Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis, p. 102.


ciplines where the historical and, culturally conditioned con-text is determinative, as Childs seems to hold,385 then he mustdeny them the status of Biblical theology. Childs appears toposit a radical hiatus between the disciplines of OT theologyand NT theology and that of his “new Biblical theology.” Theformer disciplines can function as theologies based on con-cerned non-Biblical, or better noncanonical, historical con-texts and their respective methods which trace and describethe precanonical stages with their reconstructed processes oftheological interpretation and historical forces. Contrary tothis, the “new Biblical theology” method calls for a secondstage which is confessional in the sense that it is canonical.The new context of the canon calls for a new method whichovercomes the limitations, strictures, and inadequacies of his-torical criticism.

In our view the radical methodological wedge that Childshas driven between his “new Biblical theology” method,which is grounded in the context of the total Biblical canon,and the disciplines of OT and NT theology is artificial. Whyshould Biblical theology alone be normative and the theolog-ical enterprise and OT theology (and NT theology) be deniedthat status? If Eissfeldt put a wedge between OT theology,which is for him purely confessional, and the history of thereligion of Israel, which is historical, descriptive, and objec-tive, then Childs drives a wedge between Biblical theology,which is normative and theological, and OT theology (and NTtheology), which is historical and nonnormative. Why shouldOT theology not become for Childs a history of the religionof Israel?

With the publication of Childs’s own OT Theology in aCanonical Context in 1985/1986 additional matters wereclarified for the first time, Now it is possible to see whetheronly Biblical theology was to be based on the “canonicalapproach” or whether OT theology was to be based on thesame approach or on a purely descriptive historical method-

385. See Hasel, NT fieologv pp. 70f., where Childs’ view is dealt with.


ology, as he had thought earlier. The “canonical approach” ofChilds is not to be fused or confused with “canonical criti-cism” as advocated by James A. Sanders.386 The “canonicalapproach” as a basis for OT theology means that “the objectof theological reflection is the canonical writing of the OldTestament,” which is consistent with “working within canoni-cal categories.“3*7 The “canonical approach,” in the words ofChilds, “envisions the discipline of Old Testament theologyas combining both descriptive and constructive features.“388The “descriptive task” is one in which the OT text is correctlyinterpreted as “an ancient text which bears testimony to his-toric Israel’s faith.“389 The “constructive task” envisions thediscipline of OT theology to be “part of Christian theology,and . . . the Jewish scriptures as they have been appropriatedby the Christian church within its own canon are the objectof the discipline.“390 Childs puts himself here again intosquare opposition to the Gabler-Wrede-Stendahl dichotomy of“what it meant” and “what it means.” Based on the combina-tion of the “descriptive” and “constructive” tasks of OT the-ology, Childs maintains that “the heart of the canonical pro-posal is the conviction that the divine revelation of the OldTestament cannot be abstracted or removed from the form ofthe witness which the historical community of Israel gaveit. “391 Here he is in full-fledged opposition to the approachesof von Rad and Gese, who engage in the diachronic tradition-historical or tradition-building approaches to OT theologywhich we have attempted to describe above.

386. See E A. Spina, “Canonical Criticism: Childs versus Sanders,” inInterpreting God’s Wordfor Today: An Inquiryinto Hermeneuticsfrom a BiblicalTheological Perspective, ed. J. E. Hartley and R. Larry Shelton (Anderson, IN,1982), pp. 165-194. Note also the separation outlined by Sanders himself inhis Prom Sacred Story to Sacred Text (Philadelphia, 1987) pp. 153-174.

387. B. S. Childs, OT Theology in a Canonical Context (London, 1985;Philadelphia, 1986), p. 6.

388. Ibid., p. 12.389. Ibid.399,Ibid., pr 7.391. Ibid., pp. 11-12.


The “canonical approach” for OT theology as practiced byChilds refuses to employ a “center” as a structuring means forOT theology. He sides with von Rad on this issue. He alsosides with von Rad on the matter of the polarity between“salvation history” (Heilsgeschichte) and scientific history(Historie).3g2 Thus it is not surprising that he disagrees withW. Pannenberg, who seeks to identify history with revela-tion.393 The “issue of organizing” an OT theology cannot fol-low von Rad or Eichrodt, both of whom have attempted toorganize their work from the point of view of a “closed bodyof material which is to be analysed descriptively.“3g4 ForChilds there is no single answer to the structuring process foran OT theology.

Childs’s OT Theology in a Canonical Context has 20 chap-ters. One can find some coherence in the presentation. Afteran introductory chapter, chapters 2-4 deal with the nature ofrevelation: chapters 5-a have to do with the content of revela-tion in moral, ritual, and purity laws; chapter 9 handles therecipients of revelation both collective (Israel) and individual;chapters lo-13 treat community leaders such as Moses,judges, kings, prophets (true and false), and priests; chapters14-15 deal with major cultic and secular institutions; chapters16-17 treat the issues of anthropology; and chapters 18-20turn to life in obedience and under threat and promise.

In summary, Childs has gone his own way. His presentationis innovative and challenging to others. It is methodologicallyat the end of a long pilgrimage that really began in 1964.3g5It is a mature statement of a scholar in full touch with thelarge range of historical-critical modern scholarship, which ischallenged by various matters from within itself. Childs makes

392. Ibid., p. 16.393. W. Pannenberg, Revelation as History (London, 1969); idem, Basic

Questions in Theology, 2 ~01s. (Philadelphia, 1979, 1971). Cf. Childs, O TTheoloa p. 16.

394. Childs, OT Theology, p. 15.395. See B. S. Childs, “Interpretation in Faith: The Theological Responsi-

bility of an OT Commentary,” Interp, 18 (1964), 432-449.


a major effort to move beyond the impasse of scientific his-torical description and theological appropriation for the com-munity of faith. 396 In distinction from other approaches thathave the same interest in bridging the gap from the past tothe present, which is the leading trend among both Jewishand Christian scholars, Childs refuses to use a philosophicalsystem to “translate” the Biblical message to modern man. Inthis sense he refuses to engage in the task of systematic the-ology, which employs a philosophical system of one sort oranother. He keeps the distinction between the Biblical theo-logian and systematic theologian in sharper focus than mostother present proposals.

We shall not now engage in reflections of our own onBiblical theology,397 but it is in order to summarize here ourconception of OT theology that is outlined in greater detail inthe last chapter of this book.

J. Multiplex Canonical OT Theology In conclusion we lista number of essential proposals toward a canonical OT the-ology that follow a multiplex approach.

1. The content of OT theology is indicated beforehand in-asmuch as this endeavor is a theology of the canonical OT. OTtheology is not identical with the history of Israel. The fact thatW. Eichrodt, Th. C. Vriezen, and G. Fohrer wrote separatevolumes on the religion of Israel398 is in itself an indication ofdistinction. The religion of Israel is seen as a part of or over

396. It is to be expected that particularly those who argue for a ‘critical”OT theology would be among the most ardent opponents of Childs. Forexample, James Barr, “Childs Introduction to the OT as Scripture,” JSOT, 16(19801, 13-23; idem, Holy Scripture, pp. 49-104; Collins, “Is a Critical BiblicalTheology Possible?,” pp. 5-7; John Barton, Reading the OT (Philadelphia,1984), pp. 77-103.

397. See my essay “The Hrture of Biblical Theology,” in Perspectives onEvangelical Theoloa ed. K. S. Kantzer and S. N. Gundry (Grand Rapids,1979), pp. 179-194; and “Biblical Theology: Then, Now, and Tomorrow,” HBI:4 (1982), 61-93.

398. W. Eichrodt, Religionsgeschichte lsraels (Bern/Munich, 1969); Th. C.Vriezen, The Religion of Ancient Ismel (London, 1967); G. Fohrer, Geschichteder ismelitischen Religion (Berlin, 1969), trans. History of Israelite Religion(Nashville, 1972).


against the religions of the ancient Near East,399 but OT theologyas conceived here has a different content. OT theology is also adiscipline separate from the history-of-religions approach,which emphasizes the relations of the Israelite religion withthose of the surrounding world of religion.400 Furthermore, OTtheology is not a history of the transmission of tradition. We donot wish to argue the relative merits of all of these approachesto OT theology except to note that they are uninterested orunable to present the theology of the final form of the OT texts.

2. The task of OT theology consists of providing summaryexplanations and interpretations of the final form4s1 of the in-dividual OT writings or blocks of writings that let their variousthemes, motifs, and concepts emerge and reveal their related-ness to each other. It has been demonstrated that any attempt toelaborate on OT theology on the basis of a center, key concept,or focal point inevitably falls short of being a theology of theentire OT, because no such principle of unity has as yet emergedthat gives full account of all the material in the Bible. Theemphasis on the final or fixed form fits the emphasis of literary402and structuralist~s approaches to the OT.

399. J. Barr (“Biblical Theology,” IDE Supplement [1976], p. 110) wouldlike to see a close relationship between the history of religion and OT theology.

400. An approach that conceives OT theology in terms of the history ofreligion should be called “history of Israelite religion.” Zimmerli (“Erwagun-gen zur Gestalt einer alttestamentlichen Theologie,” pp. 87-90) argues for adistinction of OT theology and a history of Israelite religion.

401. Kraus (Biblische Iheologie, p. 365) insists that the “final form is inneed of being presented by interpretation and summary” in fulfilling theactual task of Biblical theology. Blenkinsopp (Prophecy and Canon, p. 139)insists that “if biblical theology means a theology of the Bible it must takeaccount of the Bible in its final form and what that form means for theology.”From a different perspective Childs suggests that the final canonical form isthe context for biblical theology (Biblical Theology in Crisis, pp. 99-122) andthat “the significance of the final form of the biblical literature is that it alonebears witness to the full history of revelation” (“The Canonical Shape of theProphetic Literature,” p. 47).

402. In this case the emphasis on “close reading,” namely, the meticu-lous, detailed anaysis of the verbal texture of the final text, is a part of the“new criticism” that a nonstructuralist literary approach requires. See alsoHasel, NT 7Zreologv pp. 214f. n. 41, for the insistence on the integrity of thefinished piece of literature as a work of art.

493. Structuralism emphasizes also, at least at one pole, that it is the


3. The structure of OT theology follows the procedures ofthe multiplex approach. The multiplex approach refuses tofollow the traditional “concepts-of-doctrine” (Lehrbegriffe) ap-proach as well as the closely related dogmatic-didacticmethod with a Theology-Anthropology-Soteriology structure.These approaches succeed only by a tour de force, becausethe OT does not present its content in such systematizedforms. The multiplex approach also avoids the pitfalls of thecross-section, genetic, and topical methods but accepts certainaspects of them. It avoids the pitfalls of structuring a theologyof the OT by means of a center, theme, key concept, or focalpoint but allows the various motifs, themes, and concepts. toemerge in all their variety and richness without elevating anyof these longitudinal perspectives into a single structuringconcept, whether it be communion, covenant, promise, king-dom of God, or something else. The multiplex approach al-lows aside from this and in the first instance that the theolo-gies of the various OT books and blocks of writings emergeand stand next to each other in all their variety and richness.This procedure gives ample opportunity for the too oftenneglected theologies of certain OT writings to emerge in theirown right and to stand side by side with other theologies.They make their own special contributions to OT theology onan equal basis with those more recognized ones.

4. The sequence of OT theology reflects the two-prongedemphasis of theologies of books-by-books, or blocks of writ-ings, and the resulting themes, motifs, and concepts as theyemerge. The presentation of the individual theologies of theOT books, or blocks of writings, will preferably not follow thesequence of the Hebrew canon or the Septuagint. The orderingof documents within them had apparently other than theolog-ical causes. It seems to be advisable to follow the historicalsequence of the date of origin of the OT books, groups of

literary text as it meets the eye that must have attention. At the other poleis the “para-history” (Crossan’s term) which allows the structuralist to moveto the deep structures which have been coded in the text. Cf. D. Robertson,Litemry Criticism of the OT (Philadelphia, 1977).


writings, or blocks of material, though admittedly a difficulttask.

5. The presentation of the longitudinal themes of the OTas they emerged from the individual theologies of the booksor blocks of writings follows next on the basis of a multitracktreatment. This procedure frees the theologian from the notionof the tour de force of a unilinear approach determined by asingle structuring concept to which all OT testimonies aremade to refer. The procedure here proposed seeks to avoid asuperimposition of external points of view or presuppositionsbut urges that the OT themes, motifs, and concepts be formedby the Biblical materials themselves.

6. The final aim of the canonical approach to OT theologyis to penetrate through the various theologies of the individualbooks and groups of writings and the various longitudinalthemes to the dynamic unity that binds all theologies andthemes together. A seemingly successful way to come to gripswith the question of the unity is to take the various majorlongitudinal themes and explicate where and how the varie-gated theologies are intrinsically related to each other. In thisway the underlying bond of the theology of the OT may beilluminated.

7. The Christian theologian understands OT theology asbeing part of a larger whole. The name “theology of the OT”distinguishes this discipline from a “theology of ancientIsrael” and implies the larger whole of the entire Bible madeup of both Testaments. An integral OT theology stands in abasic relationship to the NT. This relationship is polychro-matic and can hardly be expected to be exhausted in a singlepattern.

These proposals for a canonical OT theology seek to takeseriously the rich theological variety of the OT texts in theirfinal form without forcing the manifold witnesses into a singlestructure, unilinear point of view, or even a compound ap-proach of a limited nature. It allows full sensitivity for bothsimilarity and change as well as old and new, without in theleast distorting the text.

III. The Question of History, History ofTradition, Salvation History,and Story

A cluster of questions connected with the proper under-standing of history has come to the center of attention dueespecially to von Rad’s theology.1 He poses the problem in itsacutest form through his sharp antithetical contrast of the twoversions of Israel’s history, namely that of “modern criticalresearch and that which Israel’s faith has built up.“2 We havealready seen that the picture of Israel’s history as recon-structed with the historical-critical method, in von Rad’sterms, “searches for a critically assured minimum-the ker-ygmatic picture [of Israel’s history as built up by its faith]tends toward a theological maximum.“3 Von Rad feels that thedichotomy of the two pictures of Israel’s history is a “difficulthistorical problem.“4 But he emphatically asserts that the sub-ject of a theology of the OT must deal with the “world madeup of testimonies”5 as built up by Israel’s faith, i.e., with thekerygmatic picture of Israel’s history, because in the OT “thereare no bruta facta at all; we have history only in the form ofinterpretation, only in reflection.“” It is crucial to von Rad’s

1. See Hasel, AUSS, 8 (1970) 29-32, 36-46.2. This phrase is found in the 1st ed. of TAT I, 8, a section unfortunately

not translated in 07T.3. TAT, I, 120; 07-T, I, 108.4. TAT, I, 119; 07-T, I, 106.5. TAT, I, 124; OTT, I, 111.6. This is the point made by von Rad, ‘Antwort auf Conzehnanns Hagen,”

1 1 5


argumentation that in the historical-critical picture of Israel’shistory no premises of faith or revelation are taken into ac-count since the historical-critical method works without aGod-hypothesis.7 Israel, however, “could only understand herhistory as a road along which she travelled under Yahweh’sguidance. For Israel, history existed only where Yahweh hasrevealed himself through acts and word.“8 Von Rad rejects theeither-or choice of considering the kerygmatic picture as un-historical and the historical-critical picture as historical. Hecontends that “the kerygmatic picture too . . . is founded inactual history and has not been invented.” Nevertheless, hespeaks of the “early historical experiences” of primeval historyin terms of “historical poetry,” “legend [Sage],” and “poeticstories”g containing “anachronisms.“1o The important thingfor von Rad is not “that the historical kernel is overlaid withfiction” but that the experience of the horizon of the laternarrator’s own faith as read into the saga is “historical”‘1 andresults in a great enrichment of the saga’s theological content.For von Rad the emphasis of the history of tradition methodis again dominant.

Although the problem of the dichotomous pictures ofIsrael’s history is not new,*2 von Rad’s position has produced

EvT 24 (1964). 393, in his dispute with the NT scholar Hans Conzehnann,“Fragen an Gerhard von Rad,” Ev?: 24 (1964), 113-125.

7. m, 88 (1963), 408ff.; Orr: II, 417.8. lZZ, 88 (1963), 409. The translation of these sentences in OZT, II, 418,

does not reflect accurately the original emphasis. The problem of the rela-tionship of word and event, word and acts, etc., is a subject of specialdiscussion in Hasel, AUSS, 8 (1970). 32-36.

9. TAT I, 120-122; On: I, 108f.10. 07-I-, II, 421f.; 77.Z, 88 (1963) 411f.11. 017: II, 421.12. Toward the end of the 19th century, scholarship in general corrected

the Biblical picture when it was felt that it was in conflict with historicalknowledge without recognizing that it may contain a considerable theologicalproblem. (Cf. C. Westermann, “Zur Auslegung des AT,” in Vergegenwiirtigung.Aufsitze zur Auslegung des AT [Berlin, 19551, p. 100.) Opponents to Well-hausenism recognized the deep rift. A. Kohler, Lehrbuch der BiblischenGescbichte AT (F&ngen, 1875), I, iv, distinguished between a secular andtheological discipline of Biblical history, claiming that it is the theologian’s

THE QUESTION OF HISTORY 1 1 7

a lively and even spirited debate. Von Rad assumed that thetwo diverging pictures of Israel’s history could “for the pres-ent”13 simply stand next to each other with OT theologyexpounding the kerygmatic one and largely ignoring the his-torical-critical one. Franz Hesse, taking up von Rad’s thesisthat the OT “is a history book [Geschichtsbuch],“l4 promptlyturns this thesis against him by arguing that unique theolog-ical relevance must be given to Israel’s history as recon-structed by the historical-critical method.15 This alone is theo-logically relevant. ls Our faith needs to rest upon “that whichhas actually happened and not that which is confessed to havehappened but about which we have to admit that it did nothappen in that way.“17 Hesse turns against what he calls vonRad’s “double tracking,” namely, that the secular history is todeal with the history of Israel while the kerygmatic version istheologically meaningful. 18 He marks out the difference be-tween the two pictures of Israel’s history with designationssuch as “real” and “unreal” or “correct” and “incorrect.” Hemaintains that the version of Israel’s history as drawn up byhistorical-critical research is alone theologically relevant, be-cause judged against the results of historical-critical research

task “to study and to retell the course of OT history as the authors of the OTunderstood it.” Both pictures have to stand independently next to each other.J. Koberle, “Heilsgeschichtliche und religionsgeschichtliche Betrachtungs-weise des AT,” Neue KirclilicheZeitscluift, 17 (1906), 200-222, to the contrary,wants to give theological validity only to the real history of Israel as reachedby modern methodology. J. Hempel, “AT und Geschichte,” in St&en desapologetischen Seminars, 27 (Giitersloh, 1930), pp. 80-83, believes that anobjectively erroneous report about the past may not oppose the reality ofdivine revelation. It still remains that God has acted even if it is in questionhow he did it. G. E. Wright, God Who Acts, p. 115, makes the distinctionbetween history and recital of history by faith where discrepancies, however,am only a “minor feature” (p. 126). Theology must deal with and communi-cate life, reason, and faith which are part of one whole.

13. TAT I, 119; OT?: I, 107.14. TAT II, 370; OTT, II, 415.15. m 57 (1960). 24f.; ZAM 89 (1969), 3.16. ZAM! 89 (1969). 6.17. 27K 57 (1960) 26.18. KuD, 4 (1958) 5-8.

ii8 OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

the picture which Israel herself has drawn up is not only opento error but in very fact too often contains error. An OTtheology must consist of “more than pure description of OldTestament tradition. . . . Our faith lives from that which hap-pened in Old Testament times, not from that which isconfessed as having happened. . . . Kerygma is not consti-tutive for our faith, but historical reality is.“‘9 Thus Hesseattempts to overcome the dichotomy of the two versions ofIsrael’s history by, closely identifying the historical-criticalpicture of Israel’s history with salvation history.20 He states:“In what the people of Israel in the centuries of its existenceexperienced, what it did and what it suffered, ‘salvation his-tory’ is present. This [salvation history] does not run side byside with the history of Israel, it does not lie upon another‘higher’ plane, but although it is not identical with the historyof Israel it is nevertheless there; thus we can say that in, with,and beneath the history of Israel God leads his salvationhistory to the ‘telos’ Jesus Christ, that is to say, in, with, andbeneath that which happens, which actually took place.“21Hesse therefore contends that “a separation between the his-tory of Israel and Old Testament salvation history is thus notpossible,” for “salvation history is present in hidden form in,with, and beneath the history of Israel.“22 From this it followsthat the totality of “the history of the people of Israel with allits features is the subject of theological research. . . .“23

Hesse grounds saving history solely in the historical-criticalversion of Israel’s history, insisting upon the “facticity of thatwhich is reported,” so that “the witness of Israel about its ownhistory is not to concern us in as far as it wants to be witnessof history, because it stands and falls with the historicity ofthat which is witnessed.“24 This seems to indicate that the

19. Znc 57 (1960), 24f.29. See also Honecker, pp. 158f.21. KuD, 4, 10.22. p. 13.23. F? 19.24. m 57 (1960), 25f.


kerygma of the OT as well as the kerygmatic version of Israel’shistory is to be judged by the historic@ of that which iswitnessed by it.25

It is to be conceded that the historical-critical picture ofIsrael’s history plays a historic role in modern times. ButHesse’s one-sided emphasis is due to his unique confidencein modern historiography. He actually falls prey to historicalpositivism. He apparently does not recognize that the histori-cal-critical version of Israel’s history is also already inter-preted history, namely, interpreted on the basis of historico-philosophical premises. Both von Rad26 and E Mildenberger27emphasize this point. Another serious stricture againstHesse’s thesis concerns his seeking to attribute to the histori-cal-critical picture of Israel’s history a historic role in NTtimes. “God’s history with Israel leading to the goal JesusChrist is to be traced where history really happened. . . .“28But OT history as it is perceived today with the historical-critical method was unknown in NT times. On this pointJames M. Robinson adds that “to relate only this historical-critical history with the goal in Jesus Christ is to conceive ofthat history in an unhistoric way.“2g J. A. Soggin designatesHesse’s attempt as an easy retreat behind modern historiogra-phy insofar as he seeks to get rid of the risk which the incar-nate Word of God has taken upon itself.30 Eva Osswald pointsout that Hesse seeks a purely historical solution to the prob-lem and that therefore history as the scene of Gods action

25. KuD, 4, 17-19.26. Von Rad points out that the version of Israel’s history given by

modern historiography is already interpreted history; TAT II, 9: ‘Auch dasBild der modernen Historie ist gedeutete Geschichte und zwar von geschichts-philosophischen Pramissen aus, die fiir das Handeln Gottes in der Geschichtekeinerlei Wahrnehmungsmoglichkeiten ergeben, weil hier notorisch nur derMensch als der Schopfer seiner Geschichte verstanden wird.”

27. Gottes Tat im Wart (Gtitersloh, 1964), p. 31 n. 37.28. KuD, 4, 11.29. “The Historicality of Biblical Language,” 07CE p. 126.30. “Alttestamentliche Glaubenszeugnisse und geschichtliche Wirk-

lichkeit,” 7Z, 17 (1960) 388; idem, “Geschichte, Historie und Heilsge-schichte,” I7,2, 89 (1964) 721ff.


recedes into the background. 31 In my opinion it is method-ologically not possible to abstract an actual event or fact fromthe confessional-kerygmatic tradition of Israel with the his-torical-critical method, and then to designate this “factualhappening” as the action of God, thereby making it theolog-ically relevant.32

In connection with Hesse’s approach it is significant that thehistorical-critical picture of Israel’s history is by no means aunified picture. We should remind ourselves that the historical-critical method has produced two versions of the proto-history,namely the version of the school of Alt-Noth on the one handand that of the school of Albright-Wright-Bright33 on the other,not to speak of the views of Mendenhall.34 In addition there area host of unsolved problems in the later period according tothese historical-critical pictures of Israel’s history, so that it isan illusion to speak of a or the scientific picture of Israel’shistory, for such a picture is just not available.35 Thus theattempt to ground theology solely on the so-called historical-critical picture of Israel’s history falls short on account ofdecisive and insurmountable shortcomings.

Walther Eichrodt also objects vehemently to von Rad’s es-tablishing such a dualism between the two pictures of Israel’shistory. He feels that the rift between the two pictures of

31. “Geschehene und geglaubte Geschichte,” W?ssenschaftliche Zeit-schrift der Universitiit Jena, 14 (1965), 707.

32. See here Mildenberger’s incisive criticism of Hesse, in Gaffes Tat imWart, p. 42 n. 67. In view of these observations it is difficult to conceive howJ. M. Robinson, “Heilsgeschichte und Lichtungsgeschichte,” EvT 22 (1962),118, can speak of a “basic strength of Hesse’s position” over against that ofvon Rad.

33. See especially M. Weippert, Die Landnahme der ismelitischenSt&rune in der neueren wissenschajtlichen Diskussion (FRLANT, 92; Gottin-gen, 1967), pp. 14-140; R. de Vaux, Die Patriarchenerziihlungen und ihreReligion (2nd ed.; Stuttgart, 1968), pp. 126-167; idem, “Method in the Studyof Early Hebrew History,” in The Bible in Modern Scholarship, pp. 15-29; andthe response by G. E. Mendenhall, pp. 30-36.

34. “The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine,” Biblical Archaeologist, 25(1962), 66-87. Note the critical discussion by one belonging to the Ah-Nothschool, Weippert, Die Landnahme, pp. 66-69.

35. Soggin, TZ, 17 (1961) 385-387.


Israel’s history “is wrenched apart with such violence . . . thatit seems impossible henceforth to restore an inner coherencebetween the aspects of Israel’s history.” Von Rad dissolved the“true history of Israel” into “religious poetry”; even worse, itis drawn up by Israel “in flat contradiction of the facts.“36 Itseems that Eichrodt’s negative reaction is centered in hisdistinction of the “external facts” of saving history in the OTfrom the “decisive inward event,” namely, “the interior over-mastering of the human spirit by God’s personal invasion.“37Here, in the creation and development of Gods people, in therealization of the covenant relationship, the “decisive” eventtakes place “without which all external facts must becomemyth.“38 Here, then, is the “point of origin for all furtherrelation in history, here is the possibility and norm for allstatements about Gods speech and deed.“39 In reality,however, the faith of Israel is “founded on facts of history”and only in this way can this faith have “any kind of bindingauthority.“40 Thus it appears that a reconciliation of bothversions of Israel’s history is in Eichrodt’s thinking not onlypossible, but in the interest of the trustworthiness of thebiblical witness absolutely necessary.41

Friedrich Baumgartel sees the weakness of von Rad’sstarting-point not so much in the question concerning themeaning of Israel’s confession for Christian faith. This questioncannot be answered by historical research but must be an-

36. TO?: I, 512f.37. TOT, I, 15.38. TO?; I, 15f.; also Eichrodt, fieologie des AT II/III (4th ed.; Gottingen,

1961), p. XII. It is to be regretted that much of the important discussioncontained in the introductory section of the German edition is omitted inEnglish.

39. Tbeologie des AT, II/III, p. VIII.40. TOT, I, 517.41. 7OJ I, 516: I‘. . . It is realized that in the OT we are dealings not with

an anti-historical transformation of the course of history into fairy tale orpoem, but with an interpretation of real events. . Such interpretation isable, by means of a one-sided rendering, or one exaggerated in a particulardirection, to grasp and represent the true meaning of the event more correctlythan could an unobjectionable chronicle of the actual course of history.”


swered theologically.42 His criticism is directed against vonRad’s attempt to solve the theological question concerning themeaning of the OT for Christian faith phenomenologically withthe aid of traditio-historical interpretation. For Baumgartelneither of the two versions of Israel’s history possesses theolog-ical relevance for Christian faith. Why? Because the problem isthat the whole OT is “witness out of a non-Christian religion.“43“Viewed historically it has another place than the Christianreligion.“44 Thus according to Baumgartel, von Rad’s error liesin assuming that Israel’s witness to Gods actions in history canbe taken at face value and as relevant for the Christian church.The apt reply of another OT theologian, Claus Westermann, ishardly an overstatement: “Ultimately he [Baumgartel] admits,then, that the church could also live without the Old Testa-ment.“45 The essential weakness of Baumgartel’s criticism ofvon Rad at this point lies in his ultimate denial of the relevanceof the OT for Christian faith.

Another solution to the problem is sought by JohamresHempel and Eva Osswald. The former maintains that even an“objectively mistaken report about the past, which has part inthe lack of trustworthiness of human tradition,“46 can be awitness about the activity of God, even if it is only a brokenwitness. According to Hempel it remains established that Godhas acted in history even if it is an open question how he acted.The investigation of the “how” is according to Hempel also partof the historian’s task.47 Osswald is not able to follow Hempel.

42. “Gerhard von Rads ‘Theologie des AT’,” ‘IZZ, 86 (1961) 805.43. “Das hermeneutische Problem des AT,” TLZ, 79 (1954), 200; “The

Hermeneutical Problem of the OT,” in EOTH, ed. C. Westermann (Richmond,VA, 1963), p. 135.

44. EOTH, p. 145.45. “Remarks on the Theses of Bultmann and Baumgartel,” in EOTH,

p. 133.46. Studien des apologetiscben Seminars, 27, pp. 80f.47. Gescbicbten und Gescbicbte im ATbis zurpersiscben Zeit (Giitersloh,

1964), p. 38: “[The] historian [has] a twofold task in dealing with the historicalmaterial of the OT He has to ask for the events which have given rise toIsrael’s faith in the historical activity of her God which shaped it, and havemodified it during the course of centuries. This means that he has to inves-


She believes that “one cannot always in a clear manner answerhow Yahweh has acted with Israel. Thus the only witness thatremains is that Yahweh has acted with Israel.“48 The distinctionbetween the “thatness” and the “howness,“4g not unfamiliarfrom NT studies,50 can hardly be considered to provide thesolution to the problem, because in the final analysis it finds itsabsolute claim to truth solely in modern historiography. Butmodern historiography is unable to speak about God’s acts.5’This Osswald concedes. “With the aid of the critical science [ofhistoriography] one is certainly not able to make statementsabout God, for there is no path that leads from the objectifyingscience of historiography to a particular theological state-ment.“52 Thus one is forced to ask whether an event is notgrasped in a basically deeper dimension in the given Biblicaltestimony which sees and presents reality in relationship to ahistory in which God brings about the salvation of his people.53

tigate whether or not the distinct claim which is made for the facticity ofthese expressions can be verified. He has to ask for Israel’s thoughts of faithwhich have been active in the formation of her historical tradition, but alsoalready in the perception of the particular events.”

48. Osswald, p. 709.49. M. Sekine, “Vom Verstehen der Heilsgeschichte. Das Grundproblem

der alttestamentlichen Theologie,” ZAM! 75 (1963) 145-154, follows Hempelin distinguishing dicta, i.e., Biblical statements, from facta, historical facts.The former are always based upon the latter; both are inseparable in theBible. Therefore the object of a Biblical theology is fuda dicta, declared factswhich make up salvation history. Up to the present some have placed eithera one-sided emphasis upon the facto (e.g., Hesse, Eichrodt) or upon the dicta(von Rad, Rendtorff). Attempts to bridge the disparity between the two haveso far been unsuccessful. In the OT existential thought connects facta anddicta with typology. Thus structural typology is a relevant method. One mustask critically whether this constitutes a superimposing upon the material ofsomething that is alien to the material itself.

50. Typical of its dilemma is the debate about the “new quest” of thehistorical Jesus.

51. A. Weiser, “Vom Verstehen des AT,“ZAw 61 (1945/48), 23f., explainsthat the rational cognition of history is limited to the temporal-spatial dimen-sion, and that the dimension of the knowledge of God can be gained onlythrough the cog&ion of faith. Cf. Osswald, p. 711: “Faith is not directed uponsingle historical events, but upon God as the Lord of history.”

52. Osswald, p. 711.53. This is the point made by W. Beyerlin, “Geschichte und ‘heilsge-

1 2 4 OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

Here the question has been raised whether or not it ismaterially pertinent to stress either the historical facts orthe confessional kerygma, which is of course also based onfacts. A. Weiser and HempeP have recognized that historicalreality and kerygmatic expression, i.e., fact and interpretation,form a unity in the OT.55 Georg Fohrer holds that if there is anessential unity between fact and interpretation, event and word,then we should not pitch one against the other, because the OTauthors used traditions that they considered “historical.“~Hempel shows that the Biblical narrators do not know thetension between report and event which exists for modern man.This had no importance for them at all because they wereconvinced about the facticity of what had happened.57 Osswaldbelieves that the facticity of what had happened is bindingonly for the ancient author, however, and not for modern man,who has raised many doubts by means of modern historiogra-

schichthche’ Traditionsbildrmg im AT,” VT 13 (1963) 25, with regard to theGideon tradition and its historical reality.

54. A. Weiser, Glaube und Geschichte im AT und audere ausgewfihlteSchrifien (Mtinchen, 1961), pp. 2, 22; J. Hempel, “Die Faktizitat derGeschichte im biblischen Denken,” in Biblical Studies in Memory of H. C.Alleman (Locus Valley, NY, 196Q), pp. 67ff.; idem, Geschichten und Geschichte,p. llff. Note also R. H. Pfeiffer, “Facts and Faith in Biblical History,“]BL, 70(1951), l-14; J. C. Rylaarsdam, “The Problem of Faith and History in BiblicalInterpretation,” PI,, 77 (19581, 26-32; C. Blackman, “Is History Irrelevant forthe Christian Kerygma?” Interp, 21 (1967); 435-446; C. E. Braaten, History andHermeneutics (Philadelphia, 1966); idem, “The Current Controversy on Rev-elation: Pannenberg and His Critics,“]R, 45 (1965), 225-237; J. Barr, “Revela-tion Through History in the OT and in Modern Theology,” Interp, 17 (1963),193-205.

55. W. Pannenberg, “The Revelation of God in Jesus Christ,” in Theologyas History (New Frontiers in Theology, III; New York, 1967), p. 127, proposesalso that “we must reinstate today the original unity of facts and their mean-ing.” That is to say that “in principle, every event has its original meaningwithin the context of occurrence and tradition in which it took place. . . .”He says further, “the knowledge of history on which faith is grounded has todo with the truth and reliability of that on which faith depends. . . . Suchknowledge . . . assures faith about its basis” (p. 269).

56. “Tradition und Interpretation im AT,” ZAI%! 73 (1961), 18.57. Hempel, Biblical Studies, pp. 67ff.; idem, “Faktum und Gesetz im

alttestamenthchen Geschichtsdenken,” ?ZZ, 85 (1960), 823ff. ; idem, Ge-schichten und Geschichte, pp. llff.

THE QUESTION OF HISTORY 125

phy.58 We are thrown back upon the question of what measuringrod is applied to establish “facticity.” In view of the Biblicaltestimony the historical-critical method working without aGod-hypothesis of which Scripture testifies brings with it acrisis of objectivity and facticity. The question arises whetherwe do not need to develop, in order to overcome the presentdilemma, a new set of concepts5s which is more appropriate tothe dynamic nature and full reality pf the texts that admittedlyencompass the unity offocta and dicta, fact and interpretation,event and word, happening and meaning.

An attempt of major proportions to come to grips with theproblem of the two pictures of Israel’s history and salvationhistory (Heilsgeschichte) has been undertaken by Wolfhart Pan-nenberg, now professor of systematic theology at Munich, whohas presented a forceful criticism of current theological posi-tions from the viewpoint, derived from the OT, that “history isthe most comprehensive horizon of Christian theology.“60 Pan-

58. Osswald, p. 710.59. Von Rad, TAT I, 120, focuses our attention on the observation “that

Israel’s expression derives from a layer of depth of historical experience whichhistorical-critical investigation is unable to fathom.”

60. This sentence opens the essay “Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte,”KuD, 5 (1959), 218-237,259-288, whose first part is translated as “RedemptiveEvent and History,” in EOTH, 314-335. Significant for our discussion are thefollowing contributions of Pannenberg: “Kerygma und Geschichte,” in Studienzur Theologie der ahtestamentlichen iiberheferungen, ed. R. Rendtorff undK. Koch (Neukirchen, 1961) pp. 129-140 (hereafter cited as Studien); Pan-nenberg, ed., OaG (2nd ed.; Gottingen, 1963), trans. Revelation as History(New York, 1968); Pannenberg, Jesus-God and Man (Philadelphia, 1968);idem, Grundfragen systematischer Theologie (Gottingen, 1968). Noteworthycritiques of Pannenberg and his group are by Hans-Georg Geyer, “Geschichteals theologisches Problem,” EvT 22 (1962), 92-104; Lothar Steiger, “Offen-barungsgeschichte und theologische Vernunft,” Z’I’K, 59 (19621, 88-113;Gunther Klein, “OaG?” Monatsschn~ fiir Pastorahheologie, 51 (1962), 65-88,to which Pannenberg replied in the “Postscript” of the 2nd ed. of OaG, pp.132-148; Klein, Theologie des Wortes Gottes und die Hypothese der Universal-geschichte. Zur Auseinandersetzung mit Wolfhart Pannenberg (Beitrage zurBvangehschen Theologie, 37; Munich, 1964); Hesse, “Wolfhart Pannenbergund das AT,” Neue Zeitschrif fin systematische Theologie und Religionswis-senschaft, 7 (1965), 174-199; Gerhard Sauter, Ztkunft und Verheissung, DasProblem der Zukunft in der gegenwartigen theologischen und philosophischen


nenberg’s presupposition for his entire theological programseems to lie in his understanding of history as “reality in itstotality.“a~ History is encompassing man’s past and present real-ity.62 He traces the development of this concept of history as“reality in its totality” from ancient Israel to the present. Pan-nenberg argues against the common distinction between histori-cal facts and their meaning, evaluation, and interpretationby man. He feels that this common procedure in modern his-toriography is a result of the influence of positivism and neo-Kantianism. Pannenberg proposes that against such an artificialdistinction “we must reinstate today the original unity of factsand their meaning.“63 That is to say that “in principle, everyevent has its original meaning within the context of occurrenceand tradition in which it took place. . . .“m Pannenberg’s objec-tive, in light of this analysis, is to create a situation in which faithcan rest on historically proven fact in order to be saved fromsubjectivity, self-redemption, and self-deception.65

Pannenberg emphasizes the thesis of “revelation as his-tory.“@ The goal of “Yahweh’s action in history is that he beknown-revelation. His action . . . aims at the goal thatYahweh will be revealed in his action as he fulfills his vow.“67

Diskussion (Ziiricb/Stuttgart, 1965), pp. 239-251; R. L. Wilken, “Who IsWolfhart Pannenberg?” Dialogue, 4 (1965), 140-142; D. I? Fuller, “A New Ger-man Theological Movement,” Sl?; 19 (1966), 160-175; G. G., O’ColBns, “Rev-elation as History,” Heythrop Journal, 7 (1966) 394-406; R. T. Osborn, “Pau-nenberg’s Programme,” Cl?: 13 (1967), 109-122; H. Obayashi, “Pannenbergand Troeltsch: History and Religion,” @AI?, 38 (1970), 401-419.

61. EOTH, p. 319.62. Pannenberg, Grundfmgen systematischer Theologie, p. 391.63. Supra, n. 55.64. Pannenberg, Theology as History, p. 127.65. I? 269: “The knowledge of history on which faith is grounded has

to do with the truth and reliability of that on which faith depends; these arepresupposed in the act of trusting, and thus logically precede the act of faithin respect to its perceived content. But that does not mean that the subjectiveaccomplishment of such knowledge would be in any way a condition forparticipating in salvation, but rather it assures faith about its basis.”

66. This is the title of the collection of programmatic essays in Revelationas History (New York, 1968).

67. EOTH, p. 317.


The connection between the Testaments is constituted by theone history, namely universal history, “which is itselfgrounded in the unity of the God who works here as well asthere and remains true to his promises.“68 In universal his-tory “the destiny of mankind, from creation onward, is seento be unfolding according to a plan of God.“69 Thus hebroadens salvation history (Heilsgeschichte) and makes itidentical with universal history.7’J When “reality in its total-ity“71 is conceived as universal history there would be noth-ing that can be excluded from this totality. Thus God’s rev-elation is the inherent meaning of history, not something thatis super-added to history.72

Whereas von Rad leaves open the relation of salvationhistory to history, Pannenberg, in his unified view of universalhistory, draws salvation history into his large category of uni-versal history. Thus it seems impossible to maintain a radicaldisjunction between the two pictures of Israel’s history, orbetween the past and the present or the present and the future.Thus Pannenberg enlarges the modern concept of history toincorporate the totality of reality into the historical-criticalmethod, which by definition had limited itself. Pannenberg’swhole theology seems to fly away from radical historicalnessof the present to contemplation of the whole. H. Obayashisays that Pannenberg’s understanding of history as the totalityof reality, despite its allegedly historical character, takes “offfrom the classical ontological question and settles it in anontological end of time. “73 “If Heilsgeschichte theology hadfled from history to some safe harbor, Pannenberg departedfrom that harbor and re-entered history only to find in thenature of history, which is immense and inexhaustible, a

68. E 329.69. Pannenberg, Revelation as History, p. 132.70. F? 133.71. EOTH, 3 1 9 .p.72. Revelation as History, 136.p.73. Obayashi, p. 405; cf. W. Hamilton, “Character of Parmenberg’s The-

ology,” in Theology as History, p. 178.


self-contained totality in which the end plays an overwhelm-ing role that immunizes the significance of the present.“74

On the positive side it must be emphasized that Pannenbergseeks to take a firm stand on the transcendent reality whichE. Troeltsch held in abeyance and relegated to personalchoice.75 For Pannenberg a transcendent reality is presupposedin man’s openness and structure of existence.‘” Pannenberg’scritique of Troeltsch’s historical method, in which the principleof analogy is based upon a one-sided anthropocentric presup-position, is to the point. T7 Pannenberg works with a synthetichistorical-critical method which emphasizes the original unityof facts and their meaning and a methodological anthro-pocentrism which is said to be capable of including the realmof the transcendent within its own presupposition.78

Rolf Rendtorff,7g a member of Pannenberg’s “workingcircle” with Ulrich Wilckensa” and Dietrich Rossler,al pro-poses to relate salvation history to the historical-critical pic-ture of Israel’s history. He would combine what is currentlyseparated into “history of Israel,” “history of tradition,” and“OT theology” into one new genre of scholarly research. Since

74. E 413.75. E. Troeltsch, Gesammelte Schnften (‘Ribingen, 1922), III, 657ff.76. Grundfiagen systematischer Theologie, pp. 283f.77. Pannenberg, “Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte,” in Grundfzagen sys-

tematischer Theologie, pp. 46-54; cf. Obayashi, pp. 407f.78. Grundfiagen systematischer Theologie, p. 54.79. Rendtorff is the OT theologian of the group, of whose writings the

following are important for the issue at hand: “Hermeneutik des AT als Ragenach der Geschichte,” ZTK 57 (1960), 27-40; idem, “Die Offenbarungsvor-stellungen im alten Israel,” OaG, pp. 21-41; idem, “Die Entstehung der israeli-tischen Religion als religionsgeschichtliches und theologisches Problem,”‘IZZ, 88 (1963), ~01s. 735-746; idem, ‘Alttestamentliche Theologie und israeli-tisch-jiidische Religionsgeschichte,” in Zwischenstation. Festschrift fiir KarlKupisch zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Helmut Gollwitzer and J. Hoppe (Munich,1963), pp. 208-222. Noteworthy also is the critique of Rendtorff by ArnoldGamper, “Offenbarung in Geschichte,” Z7K, 86 (1964), 180-196.

80. “Das Offenbarungsverstandnis in der Geschichte des Urchristen-turns,” OaG, pp. 42-90.

81. D. Rossler, Gesetz und Geschichte. Untersuchungen zur Theologie derjtidischen Apokalyptik und der pharisaischen Orthodoxie (WMANT, 3; 2nded.; Neukirchen, 1962).


this is all united in the tradition, he elevates the term “tradi-tion” to the center of his discussion. He explains that “Israel’shistory takes place in the external events which are commonlythe subject of historical-critical research of history and in themanifold and stratified inner events, which we have gatheredunder the term tradition.“82 Therefore, the historical-criticalmethod is to be transformed and extended so as to be able toverify at the same time Gods revelation in history. It is notsurprising that Rendtorff has much to say about the relationof word and event. He is of the conviction that “word has anessential part in the event of revelation.” But this should notbe understood to mean that word has priority over event.Quite on the contrary, the word does not need to be themediator between the event and the one who experiences theevent, because “the event itself can and should bring about arecognition of Yahweh in the one who sees it and understandsit to be the act of Yahweh.“83

But apart from employing the term “tradition” in his com-prehensive horizon, Rendtorff’s attempt does not go beyondvon Rad, who even used it in the subtitles of his two volumeson OT theology. It needs to be asked what kind of relevanceone can expect of the tradition history. Undoubtedly the his-tory of tradition is able to further Biblical-theological ex-pounding and interpretation, but the question remainswhether or not this method, even in a broadened perspective,can be made the “canon” of Biblical-theological under-standing. H.-J. Kraus remarks critically that “the strange op-timism, believing that with the wonder word ‘history of tradi-tion’ both faith and history can be handled, leads of necessityto the security of the program ‘revelation as history’.“84

82. Rendtorff, Studien, p. 84.83. OaG, p. 40. Zimmerli countered Rendtorff in “ ‘Offenbarung’ im AT,”

EvT, 22 (1962), 15-31, to which Rendtorff replied with “Geschichte und Wortim AT,” EvT 22 (1962) 621-649. A summary of the debate is given byRobinson, “Revelation as Word and as History,” in Theology as History, pp.42-62.

84. Biblische Theologie, p. 370.


In view of this situation Kraus has correctly pointed out that“one of the most difficult questions of the laying hold of andpresenting of ‘Biblical theology’ is that of the starting-point,the meaning and function of historical-critical research.“85 VonRad’s theology is in its starting-point definitely a historical-critical undertaking, as is evident in that his theology is atheology of traditions. This approach contains many questions.One crucial problem area is the relationship of history of tradi-tion and salvation history. Let me illustrate what I mean. Theprophets of Israel actualized the ancient traditions; the old wasmade new. Among them “a critical way of thinking sprang upwhich learned how to select, combine, and even reject, data fromthe wealth of tradition. . . .“a6 This whole process von Rad callsa “charismatic-eclectic process.“87 What about this “process” outof which a “linear course of history”88 was constructed which inturn produced new historical events? The question that arises iswhether or not the Biblical event is traditio-historical event. Orto express it differently, Is the horizontal structural frameworkof the traditions the decisive “process” which an OT theologyhas to adopt and to explicate? Is the theology of.the historyof traditions properly OT theology? The aim of these criticalquestions is not to minimize the right and meaning of traditio-historical research. Yet one cannot shirk the responsibility tocome to grips with the question whether or not OT theology hasits methodological starting-point in the traditio-historicalmethod. To speak with Kraus, it seems that OT theology is onlytheology of the OT8g in that it “accepts the given textual contextas contained in the canon as historical truth whose final form isin need of explanation and interpretation in a summary presen-

85. I? 363.86. TAT, II, 118; OIT, II, 108.87. TAT II, 345. Cf. Baumgartel, 7ZZ, 12 (1961), 901-903.88. TAT II, 118; On II, 108.89. Ebeling, Word and Faith, pp. 79f., points up the ambiguity of the

term Biblical theology, which can mean either the theology contained in theBible or the theology that has Biblical character and accords with the Bible.The same distincton is applicable to OT theology. OT theology means thetheology contained in the OT, and this theology has also normative claims.


tation.“gO If this is the proper task of OT theology, then it is notto be considered a “history of revelation,” “history of religion,”or “history of tradition” as the case may be.91

In the present writer’s opinion it seems feasible neither toground “salvation history” in the historical-critical method(Hesse) nor to enlarge the historical-critical method to suchan extent that the totality of reality can come to expressionthrough it (Pannenberg, Rendtorff), because the major presup-positional and philosophical adjustments to be made wouldso radically change this method that its historical-critical na-ture as commonly understood at present would be obliterated.Nevertheless, no matter how we evaluate the way in whichPannenberg and his group worked out their theologies, Pan-nenberg’s proposal that “we must reinstate today the originalunity of facts and their meaning”92 calls for serious consid-eration as a new starting-point for overcoming the moderndichotomy by which historiography has wrenched apart thehistory of Israel under such outmoded and questionable in-fluences as positivism and neo-Kantianism.g3 Faith wouldthus not be established by the “language of facts”g4 nor by anyproof of events on the basis of the historical-critical method,but by the fact of language, which brings both event and wordas a central original unity to the hearer. Thus when we speakof Gods acts in Israel’s history, there is no reason to confinethis activity to a few bare events, beta facta, that the schemaof historical criticism can verify by cross-checking with other

90. Biblische Theologie, p. 364.91. Vriezen, An Outline of OT Theolod, pp. 146f.; and also Kraus,

Bibhsche Theologie, pp. 364f. Kraus goes on to explain that this is not a newBiblicism but a part of the critical theological task to continue to test andexplain methodological procedures.

92. Pannenberg, Theology as History, p. 127.93. The OT theologian Christoph Barth argues in “Grundprobleme einer

Theologie des AT,” Ev’l; 23 (1963), 368, against a critical methodology thatdeclares every “suprahuman and supranatural causality” unhistorical, as wellas against a “rational-objective method” that believes itself able to distinguishwithout great difficulty between “real” and “interpreted” history.

94. Paunenberg, OaG, pp. 100, 112.


historical evidences. Nor is it adequate and appropriate toemploy the hermeneutical schema of von Rad, because withneither schema has scholarship been able to reach a fullyacceptable understanding of historical reality, due to seriousmethodological, historical, and theological limitations, restric-tions, and inadequacies. Gods acts are with the totality ofIsrael’s career in history, including the highly complex anddiverse ways in which she developed and transmitted herconfessions. Thus we must work with a method that takesaccount of the totality of that history under the recognitionof the original unity of facts and their meaning and an ade-quate concept of total reality.

By the 1970s the historical-critical paradigm which hadbeen built on modern, rationalistic principles of historiogra-phy, as we have seen in our discusssion so far, was still in thegrip of subordinating literary questions to the reconstructionsof history and religion. This remained true also in form criti-cism and in the tradition-historical method.95 Hans Frei mosteffectively and insightfully described this whole developmentin his pregnant work 7?re Eclipse of Biblical Narrative (NewHaven, 1974).96 It would go too far beyond our range to de-scribe the change in the study of the Bible from the historicalparadigm to the literary paradigm at this point. It is notewor-thy nevertheless that this change is conditioned not only bythe inadequacies of the historical-critical method or its failureto free the Bible from the past but also by a shift that was

95. For a concise survey of the emergence of new literary (and also socialscience) approaches to Biblical study, see Norman Gottwald, The HebrewBible: A Socio-Literary Introduction (Philadelphia, 1985), pp. 20-34; John Bar-ton, Reading the OT Method in Biblical Study (Philadelphia, 1984), pp. 104-179; Robert Morgan with John Barton, Biblical Interpretation (Oxford/NewYork, 1988), pp. 203-268; see also from another perspective Edgar VM&night, Post-Modern Use of the Bible: The Emergence of Reader-OrientedCriticism (Nashville, 1988).

96. Cf. also the reaction and criticisms by E. M. Klaaaren, “A CriticalAppreciation of Hans Hei’s Eclipse of Biblical Narrative,” Union SeminaryQuarterly Review 37 (1982) 283-297; C. West, “On Fret’s Eclipse of BiblicalNarrative,” Union Seminary Quarterly Review, 37 (1982), 299-302.


taking place in the USA particularly from the seminary to the(nonprivate) university as the latter developed departmentsof religious studies, where the Bible was not to be studied asScripture-from a theological tradition or in a confessionalway as canon-but as “source” for the various traditions ofboth Jewish and Christian religions or with thoroughly com-parative and anthropological approaches.97 Accordingly,much work on the Bible as literature, using various literaryapproaches, aside from social, anthropological, and compara-tive approaches, has been done by persons associated withthe university. That this has in turn influenced the study ofthe Bible at the seminary is self-evident.98

At one point, fairly early in the discussion, James Barrentered the fray by suggesting that the “historical’ model forBiblical (and OT) theology be replaced with the “story”model.gg Before him John Wharton had already argued in along essay that the category “story” is to replace that of history,since the latter is of fairly recent origin in Western cultureand is not the “proper starting point for OT exegesis andtheology. “100 After providing a study of the concept “story,”Wharton explains that “story” is what Israel “remembered in

97. Note the provocative title of the book by Robert A. Oden, Jr., 7&e BibleW%bout Theology: The Theological Tradition and Alternatives to It (San PYancisco,1987). This volume is a masterly tour de force in the attempt to show that atthe secular university in North America the Bible should be studied in a contextoutside that of theology (p. 159) and that a “thoroughly comparative and an-thropological approach offers us a clear set of alternatives to the theologicaltradition. Further, these departures horn the long dominant tradition [of theology] are mom in keeping with methods employed elsewhere in the modernuniversity, a setting in which the study of religion has only recently been invitedand in which it still sits somewhat unsurely” (pp. 161-162).

98. This is evident everywhere. See the contributors to various journals,and also, e.g., Semeia: An Experimental Journal for Biblical Criticism, 48, ed.Edgar V. M&night (1989).

99. James Barr, “Story and History in Biblical Theology,” JR, 56 (1976)11-17; repr. in James Barr, Scope and Authority of the Bible (London, X986),pp. 1-17.

100. John Wharton, “The Occasion of the Word of God: An UnguardedEssay on the Character of the OT as the Memory of Gods Story with Israel,”Austin Seminary Bulletin, 84 (Sept. 1968), 5-54, esp. p. 20.


an astonishing variety of modes reaching out to embrace mostaspects of human life.“~al The “story” model is able to com-municate with modern man.102

For Barr the OT became in the course of time a “completedstory.“lo3 Dietrich Ritschl speaks of a “meta-story” as regardsthe OT, which is made up of different “detail-stories.” The“meta-story” is the overarching expression of Israel’s iden-tity.104 Barr’s programmatic view of the “story” paradigmmeans that “ultimately ‘history’ [in its modern usage as ascience developed since the Enlightenment], when used as anorganizing and classifying bracket, is not a biblical cate-gory. “la5 “Story” is a more appropriate way of describing thematerials in the Bible. If this were granted, what about therevelation of God in the literary form “story”? Barr states, “Justas there is variation in the degree of approximation of storiesto ‘history,’ so we may consider that there is a great deal ofvariation in the degree to which God ‘reveals himself’ in thestories.“lo6 The “story” concept is one of understanding theBible as literature. This mode of viewing the Bible comes inone sense as a reaction to seeing it purely or solely in termsof “history.” Whichever direction it would be taken, the modeof seeing the Bible and Biblical materials as “story” puts theBible into the framework of reading it as literature, and thatis a different reading from its predominant paradigm of read-ing it in the historical mode.

Krister Stendahl emphasized that it will not do merely toread the Bible as “story.” He insists on the Bible’s “normative”nature. The Bible as “classic” literature does not have any

101. Ibid., p. 22.102. Ibid., pp. 29, 53.103. Barr, Scope and Authority, p. 15.104. Dietrich Ritschl, “‘Story’ als Rohmaterial der Theologie,” in

D. Ritschl and H. 0. Jones, “Sfoly” als Rohmaterial der Theologie (Munich,1976), pp. 22-24; D. Rttschl, 7?re Logic of Theology (London, 1986). See alsoH. 0. Jones, “Das Story-Konzept in der Theologie,” in “‘Story”als Rohmaterialder Theologie, pp. 42-68; J. Licht, Storytelling in the Bible (Jerusalem, 1978).

105. James Barr, Old and New in Interpretation (New York, 1966), p. 69.106. Ibid., p. 70.


more claim on anyone than any other classic literature. In hispresidential address before the Society of Biblical Literature,he insists that “it may be worth noting that the more recentpreoccupation with ‘story’ tends to obscure exactly the nor-mative dimension [of the Bible as Scripture based on thecanon] .“lo7

Modern literary studies received a new turn in the 1940swhen the study of literature moved into what became knownas “New Criticism.“laa John Barton depicts the three majortheses of the New Criticism: (1) The literary text is an “arte-fact”; (2) “intentionalism” is a fallacy; and (3) “the meaningof a text is a function of its place in a literary canon.“109 TheNew Criticism won independence from the traditional philo-logical and historical emphasis in the study of classical litera-ture over a 200-year period. As it was begun by I. A. Richardsand T. S. Eliot in the 192Os, New Criticism insisted on theautonomy of the individual work of literary art. Each workhad and needed to be seen as a unit with its own aestheticvalue. It reacted against the emphasis on history and reachedits high point in the early 1960s. It was known for its emphasison the “close reading” of the text.

The Israeli scholar Meir Weiss is possibly the best repre-sentative of the “close reading” mode for the Hebrew Bibleand his stated dependence on the New Criticism?0 Here isagain a .conscious attempt to break loose from the paradigmof scientific history with all its limitations and problems.111Here is also the claim that B. S. Childs’ “canonical approach”

107. Krister Stendahl, “The Bible as a Classic and the Bible as HolyScripture,” JBL, 103 (1984), 3-10, quotation from p. 8.

108. For a history of developments in literary studies, see R. Wellek andA. Warren, Theoryofbiterature (3rd ed.; New York, 1977); E Lentrieccha,Afterthe New Criticism (London, 1986).

109. John Barton, Reading the 07: p. 144. In what follows I remainheavily dependent on his excellent survey.

110. Meir Weiss, 7&e Bible Horn within: The Method of Total Interpreta-tion (Jerusalem, 1984), pp. l-46.

111. See the helpful book by Tremper Longman III, Litemry Approachesto Biblical Interpretation (Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation, 3;Grand Rapids, 1987), pp. 25-45.


depends on the New Criticism,112 though Childs himself in-sists that he has no such conscious dependence.“3 Againstthe interpretation and association of his “canonical approach’as a part of the New Criticism or the like, Childs emphaticallymaintains that this “is a misunderstanding”l14 on the part ofJohn Barton. For Childs, in contrast to a literary reading of theBible, “the initial point to be made is that the canonical ap-proach to Old Testament theology is unequivocal in assertingthat the object of theological reflection is the canonical writingof the Old Testament.“115 The object for theological reflectionis not the OT as literature but the OT as canonical Scripture!In this instance Childs would side with Stendahl’s emphasisthat while the Bible may be seen as a literary classic of somespecial sort, the Bible belongs -“to the genre of Holy Scrip-ture,“116 “because what makes the Bible the Bible is thecanon. “117 In its normative nature the Bible “is different fromShakespeare or from the way one now reads Homer.“118

It is on this point that Wesley A. Kort reflects, in his sen-sitive book Story, Text, and Scripture, that a literary paradigmand its “literary interests in biblical narrative require or implya new concept of scripture. “119 This “new concept” is that “theconcept of scripture . . . has a literary base before it has atheological consequence.“120 This means that if the “Biblereveals something about religion and about God, it does so inand through narrativity and textuality.“l21 Stendahl, Childs,and hosts of others will demur and insist that the normativity

112. Barton, Reading the 01; pp. 153-156.113. This is stated by John Barton, “Classifying Biblical Criticism,” JSO?;

29 (1984), 27-28.114. B. S. Childs, OT Theology, p. 6.115. Ibid., p. 6.116. Stendahl, “Bible as a Classic,” p. 8.117. Ibid., p. 6.118. Ibid., p. 8.119. Wesley A. Kort, Story, Text, and Scripture: Literary Interests in Bib

lical Narmtive (University Park, PA/London, 1987), p. 1.120. Ibid., p. 3.121. Ibid.


of the Bible is rooted in its canonicity and not in its literarynature of textuality and narrativity. Childs also maintains thenotion of revelation as a vertical dimension in addition to thehorizontal dimension of canon in which the normativity ofthe Bible is manifested.122 To ground authority and truth in apiece of literature that is a “classic,” which David Tracy123proposed as a main category for Scripture, is highly prolemati-cat for both Stendahl and Childs. Furthermore, the view thatthe canon of Scripture “does not necessarily imply a qualita-tive difference over against other ancient literature but onlya recognition of the historical importance of these texts withinthe tradition”124 diminishes the normativity of Scripture in amost significant way for the process of OT (and Biblical)theology.

The issues regarding “story” and also “narrative,“125another major category of literature which has diversified intonumerous types126-a subject of breadth that deserves a sep-arate treatment-will continue to exercise exegetes, literary

122. Childs, OT Theolow, pp. 20-26.123. David Tracy, 711e Analogical Imagination: Christian Theology and

the Culture of Pluralism (New York, 1981). pp. 102, 114, 119.124. John J. Collins, “Is a Critical Biblical Theology Possible?,” p. 8.125. See, e.g., Edgar V. M&night, Meaning in Texts: The Historical Shap-

ing of Narrative Hermeneutics (Philadelphia, 1978); Robert Alter, The Art ofBiblical Narmtive (New York, 1981); idem, The Art of Biblical Poetry (NewYork, 1985); George W. Stroup, The Promise of Narmtive Theology (Atlanta,1981); Michael Goldberg, Theology and Narrative: A Critical Mmduction(Nashville, 1982); Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative(Sheffield, 1983); E McConnell, ed., The Bible and the Narmtive 7?aa!ition(New York, 1986); Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative (Bloom-ington, IN, 1987). The collected “classical” essays edited by Stanley Hauerwasand L. Gregory Jones, Why Narrative? Readings in Narrative Theology (GrandRapids, 1990), are first-class reading on the subject from those who are at theforefront of narrative theology. See also Carl E H. Henry, “Narrative Theology:An Evangelical Appraisal,” Trinity Journal, NS 8 (1987), 3-19, and the re-joinder by Hans Frei, “Response to ‘Narrative Theology: An Evangelical Ap-praisal,’ ” Trinity Journal, NS 8 (1987), 21-24. Of great interest is also Kevin J.Vanhoozer, ‘X Lamp in the Labyrinth: The Hermeneutics of ‘Asthetic’ The-ology,” 7kinity Journal, NS 8 (1987), 25-56.

126. See Gabriel Fackre, “Narrative Theology: An Overview,” Interp, 37(1983), 340-352.


critics, and theologians alike. The very shift from the para-digm of history to that of literature for a new critical theologyof the Bible will need to bring about new reflections withregard to OT theology and Biblical theology. Among these willbe the new understanding of truth,‘27 the understanding thatthe Biblical narrative is “history-like” (H. W. Frei),l28 or “myth”(R. A. Oden),129 or “prose fiction” (R. Alter),lsO or generallythat the Biblical materials are imaginative construals that arenot necessarily factual. For the Bible, perceived as literaturewith “imaginative construals” of Scripture, this means in \thewords of Collins that “their value for theology lies in theirfunction as myth or story rather than in their historical ac-curacy. “131 The literary paradigm with “story” or “narrative”works with totally different sets of references and contextsthan the historical-critical paradigm but shares with the latternew understandings of the nature, function, and purpose ofthe Bible as compared with the traditional mode of seeing andunderstanding it as the Word of God that is self-sufficient andinspired. These limited pointers to some of the new aspectsrelated to the “story” paradigm hopefully indicate where someof the intricacies and complexities rest that will occupy thestudent of the Bible for some time to come.

127. See David Robertson, The OT and the Litemry Critic (Philadelphia,1977), pp. 11-13; and the extensive section in Sternberg, Poetics of BibhcalNarrative, pp. 23-35.

128. Frei, Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, p. 258.129. Oden, Bible mthout Theology, pp. 57-91.130. Alter, Art of Biblical Narmtive, pp. 23-24.131. Collins, “Is a Critical Biblical Theology Possible?,” p. 11.

IV. The Center of theand OT Theology

OT

The question whether the OT has something that can beconsidered its center (German M&e) is of considerable impor-tance for its understanding and for doing OT theology. Thematter of the center plays an important and at times evendecisive role for presentations of OT theology.

It is not necessary to survey the development of this ques-tion during the last two centuries in which rather divergentpresentations of Biblical theology were brought forth.1 Withthe publication of Eichrodt’s theology this question has comeinto new focus. For him the “central concept” and “covenientsymbol”2 for securing the unity of Biblical faith is the“covenant.” “ The concept of the covenant,” explains Eichrodt,“was given this central position in the religious thinking ofthe OT so that, by working outward from it, the structuralunity of the OT message might be made more readily visible.“3He does not consider it a “doctrinal concept, with the help ofwhich a complete corpus of dogma can be worked out, butthe characteristic description of a living process, which wasbegun at a particular time and at a particular place, in orderto reveal a divine reality unique in the whole history of re-

1. We would like to draw attention to the short recent study of the subjectby R. Smend, Die Mitte des AT (Zurich, 1970), pp. 7, 27-33.

2. TOT, I, 13f.3. 701: I, 17.

1 3 9


ligion”4 Thus Eichrodt’s theology represents one of the mostimpressive attempts to understand the OT as a whole not onlyfrom a center but from the unifying concept “covenant.”

It appears that the discoveries of the legal background ofthe Mosaic covenant as particularly stimulated by G. E. Men-denhalls further undergird Eichrodt’s emphasis. The ensuingdiscussion, however, has somewhat dampened the early en-thusiasm.6 Now G. Fohrer even thinks that the covenant be-tween Yahweh and Israel played no role at all in Israel betweenthe end of the 13th and the end of the 7th century B.C.,’ apoint to which Eichrodt has responded8 and in which Fohrermay see things from a too limited perspective. The importanceof the covenant motif in the OT is not to be denied, but thecrucial question remains: Is the covenant concept broad

4. TOT, I, 14. The centrality of the covenant for OT religion has foundsupporters long before Eichrodt: August Kayser, Die TheoIogie des ATin ihrergeschichtichen Entwickhmg dargestellt (Strassburg, 1886), p. 74: “The over-riding thought of the prophets, the anchor and support of OT religion ingeneral, is the idea of theocracy, or to use the expression employed in theOT itself, the idea of covenant.” G. F. Oehler, Theologie des AT (‘Bibingen,1873), I, 69: “The foundation of OT religion is the covenant through whichGod has entered the chosen tribe for the purpose of realizing his savingpurpose.”

5. Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient East (Pittsburgh, 1955);idem, “Covenant,” DB, I, 714-723.

6. For a summary of the discussion, see D. J. McCarthy, “Covenant inthe OT: The Present State of Inquiry,” CBQ, 27 (1965), 217-240; idem, DerCoffesbund im AT(Znd ed.; Stuttgart, 1967); trans. Z%e OTCovenant (Oxford,1972). The latter contains a comprehensive bibliography.

7. “AT--‘Amphiktyonie’ und ‘Bund’?” TLZ, 91 (1966), 893-904; idem,“Der Mittelpunkt einer Theologie des AT,” 72, 24 (1968), 162f. L. Perlitt,Bundestheologie im AT (WMANT, 36; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1971), believes thatthe covenant theology in the OT is a late fruit of Israelite belief which is dueto the theological creativity of the Deuteronomistic movement and epoch.This then explains the “covenant silence” in the prophets of the 8th century.

8. W. Eichrodt, “Prophet aud Covenant: Observations on the Exegesis ofIsaiah,” in Proclamation and Presence: OT Essays in Honor of G. HentonDavies, ed. J. I. Durham and J. R. Porter (Richmond, 1970) pp. 167-188,maintains that the original covenant of Yahweh with Israel is not mentionedby Isaiah because the prophet did not wish to argue about a concept that wasso important in his own faith. On the whole question, see R. E. Clements,Prophecy and Covenant (SBT, l/43; London, 1965).

T H E C E N T E R O F T H E O T A N D O T T H E O L O G Y 1 4 1

enough to include adequately within its grasp the totality ofOT reality? One cannot but give a negative answer to thequestion. The problem remains whether or not any singleconcept should or can be employed for bringing about a“structural unity of the OT message” when the OT messageresists from within such systematization.

Various scholars have felt that the OT has other centers.E. Sellin chooses as the central idea to guide him in hisexposition of OT theology the holiness of God. “It is thatwhich characterizes the deepest and innermost nature ofthe OT God.“9 Sellin makes the point that his OT theologyis interested “only in the single great line which has foundits completion in the Gospel, the word of the eternal Godin the OT writings.“‘0 Whereas the national-cultic religionof popular belief looks mainly to the past and present,the ethical and universal religion of the prophets looksto the future, to the coming of the Holy One in judgmentand salvation both of which arise out of the holiness ofG0d.l’

Like Eichrodt and Sellin, Ludwig Kiihler has his ownfavorite central concept, namely that of God as the Lord.12For Kohler the fundamental and determining assertion of OTtheology should be that God is the Lord. “This statement isthe backbone of Old Testament theology.“13 The rulershipand kingship of God are merely corollaries to Gods lord-ship.14

Hans Wildberger suggests that “the central concept of theOT is Israel’s election as the people of God.“15 Horst Seebassstresses the “rulership of Cod.“‘6 Gunther Klein argues for the

9. Theologie des AT (2nd ed.; Leipzig, 1936), p. 19.10. I! 1.11. Pp. 21-23.12. OT Theolow, trans. A. S. Todd (Philadelphia, 1957), p. 30.13. I? 35.14. I? 31.15. ‘auf dem Wege zu einer biblischen Theologie,” EvT, 19 (1959), 77f.16. “Der Beitrag des AT zum Entwurf einer biblischen Theologie,” WuD,

8 (1965), 34-42.


“kingdom of God as a central concept”17 in both OT and NT.Georg Fohrer answers the question of the OT “from which itcan proceed and around which everything can be grouped”‘8with a “dual concept,“1g “namely the rule of God and thecommunion between God and man.“20 These two poles belongtogether as the two foci of an ellipse.21 They “constitute theunifying element in the manifoldedness”22 of the theologicalexpressions and movements in the OT from which a Biblicaltheology of both OT and NT can be constructed. The OT andNT are then not to be correlated in terms of promise andfulfillment or failure and realization, but “in the relationshipof beginning and continuation [Beginn und Fortsetzung] .“23With the aid of this dual center and on the basis of this twofoldrelationship the OT does not need to be devaluated or rein-terpreted but it can be taken seriously in its own uniqueness.

The thoroughly revised and rewritten new edition ofVriezen’s theology is related at least in one key aspect to theviews of Fohrer. Although Vriezen explicitly affirms that God“is the focal point of all the Old Testament writings” andstoutly maintains that “Old Testament theology must centreupon Israel’s God as the God of the Old Testament in Hisrelations to the people, man, and the world. . . ,“24 one mustclearly understand that the central element for his structureof OT theology is the concept of “communion.“25 Vriezen calls

17. “ ‘Reich Gottes’ als biblischer Zentralbegiff,” EvT 30 (1970), 642-670.18. “The Centre of a Theology of the OT,” Nedenfuitse Gerefonneerde

Teologiese Tydskriif; 7 (1986), 198; the same article appeared in German, withfootnotes, under the title, “Der Mittelpunkt einer Theologie des AT,” IZ, 24(1968), 161.

19. “Das AT und das Thema ‘Christologie’,” Ev?: 30 (1970), 295: “In thequest for the center of OT theology appears the dual concept of the rule ofGod and the communion between God and man.”

20. IZ, 24 (1968), 163.21. EvT 30 (1970), 295.22. 7Z, 24 (1968), 163; EvT 30 (1970), 295.23. 7Z, 24 (1968),163.24. An Outline of OT Theolo$, p. 150 (italics mine).25. I? 8, where Vriezen writes that the main part of his book (chs. 6-11)

has undergone an important transformation in form since he “attempted toestablish the ‘communion’ . . . as the centre of all the expositions.”


the communion concept the “underlying idea,” “essential rootidea, “26 “fundamental idea,“27 or “keystone”28 of the messageof the OT. Why does he prefer the communion concept to thecovenant concept as used by Eichrodt? Vriezen believes thatthe covenant did not bring the two covenant partners “intocontract-relation, but into a communion, with God. . . .“29 Headds that “we cannot be certain that the communion betweenGod and the people was considered from the outset as acovenantal communion.“30 Since the NT is in Vriezen’s view,shared also by Fohrer,31 in complete agreement with theOT in that communion is the “fundamental point of faith,”it follows for Vriezen that the fundamental idea of “commu-nion between God and man is the best starting-point for aBiblical theology of the Old Testament,” which must “be ar-ranged with this aspect in view.“32 Thus it turns out thatVriezen’s newest attempt is a combination of the cross-sectionand his confessional methods. The similarity betweenEichrodt’s OT theology and that of Vriezen is that both workwith complementary methodologies. The difference betweenthe two scholars lies in that Eichrodt employs his type ofcross-section method with the use of the covenant conceptbut remaining with both feet planted in history. Eichrodt isthus more descriptive and Vriezen more confessional, Thelatter achieves structural unity with the aid of the singlecommunion concept.

Rudolf Smend’s recent study on the center of the OT re-vives Wellhausen’s formula, “Yahweh the God of Israel, Israelthe people of Yahweh.“33 If this particularistic formula is ac-

26. F? 160.27. P 170.28. F? 164.29.R 169.3O.P 351.31. EvT, 30 (1970), 296-298.32. An Outline of OT 7heology2, p. 175.33. Die Miffe des ‘41: pp. 49, 5s. J. Wellhausen, Israelitisch-jiidische

Religion. Die kbltur der Gegenwati l/4:1 (Leipzig, 1905), p. 8, states that thesentence “Yahweh the God of Israel and Israel the people of Yahweh” has


cepted, argues Smend, then the tension between God andIsrael can come to expression in an OT theology. At this pointit is significant to note that Smend, as Fohrer before him,recognizes that a single concept is unable to do justice to themanifold and multiform testimony of the OT. He would, there-fore, choose this formula rather than a single concept becausewith this formula one is able to come to grips with a significanttension in the OT. But Smend himself admits that this formuladoes not express the center of the whole OT and is decidedlyof limited value with regard to the Christian Scriptural canonof OT and NT.s4 Aside from the latter point, however, thisformula would seem too particularistic, for within the tensionbetween Yahweh and his people with which this formula isconcerned one is unable to expound the universalistic em-phasis of the OT, i.e., Yahweh’s action with the world and theworld vis-a-vis Yahweh. Yahweh is not only the God of Israelbut also the Lord of the world.35

Smend argues that the OT should be studied on the basisof its center.36 Against this principle there is hardly any soundobjection to be advanced. But one needs to be on guard thatone does not yield to the temptation to make a single conceptor a certain formula into an abstract divining-rod with whichall OT expressions and testimonies are combined into a uni-fied system. Though Smend is aware of this danger, henevertheless makes such a definite use of his particularistic

“been for all times the short essence of the Israelite religion.” Bernhard Duhm,Die Theologie der Propheten (Leipzig, 1875). p. 96, has argued that in the dualformula “Israel, Yahweh’s people and Yahweh, Israel’s God” the “whole con-tent of prophetic religion has come fully to expression.” B. Stade, RiblischeTheologie des AT (2nd ed.; Tubingen, 1965), I, 31, holds that “Yahweh, Israel’sGod” is “the basic idea of the religion of Israel.” Martin Noth, Die israelitkchenPersonennamen im Rahmen der gemeinsemitischen Namengebung (2nd ed.;Hildesheim, 1966), p. 81, believes that in the “sentence, that expresses thatYahweh is Israel’s God and Israel is Yahweh’s people” comes to expressionthe “characteristic nature” of Israelite religion.

34. Die Mitte des A1: pp. 55-58.35. Seebass, WuD, 8 (19651, 3841, speaks of Yahweh as a “Weltherr-

schergott.”36. Die Mitfe des AT, p. 49.


formula that it turns out to serve as the key for the systematicordering of the OT materials, subjects, themes, and motifs.37This goes beyond the limits that must be imposed upon theusage and significance of a center of the OT, whatever it maybe. One must always be on guard not to overstep the bound-aries inherent in any kind of center. IS. H. Miskotte has cor-rectly warned that we should not consider a center as estab-lishing “the timeless, usable content of the Old Testament.“38Each of the suggestions so far described has undoubtedlymuch in its favor. At the same time every one of them seemsto be wanting. They fall short because they try to grasp theOT in terms of a single basic concept or limited formulathrough which the OT message in its manifoldness andvariety, its continuity and discontinuity, is ordered, arranged,and systematized when the multiplex and multiform natureof the OT resists such handling of its materials and thoughts.

Here Gerhard von Rad’s absolute No to the question of thecenter of the OT in its relation to the doing of OT theologyhas a unique significance. Von Rad’s position merits a moredetailed analysis, since he claims unequivocally that “on thebasis of the Old Testament itself, it is truly difficult to answerthe question of the unity of that Testament, for it has no focal-point [Mitte] as is found in the New Testament.“3g Whereas

37.Pp. 54f.38. When the Gods Am Silent [New York, 1967), p. 119.39. TA?: II, 376; On II, 362. Earlier von Rad, “Kritische Vorarbeiten zu

einer Theologie des AT,” in Theologie und Liturgie, ed. L. Hennig (Munich,1952), p. 39, stated the following: “Therefore we have to be confronted stillmore consciously and consistently with the mysterious phenomenon of thelack of a center in the OT. The place of the center is the way or, as Isaiahformulated it for the entire OT, the ‘work’ of Yahweh (Isa. 5:19; 16:X2; 22:X2).”TLZ, 88 (1963), col. 405 n. 3a: “What is actually intended by the almostuniversal question of the ‘unity,’ the ‘center’ of the OT? Is it so self-evident,that its appearance belongs to the conditio sine qua non of an OT theology?And in what sphere shall this unity (accepted from the beginning as present)be demonstrated, in the area of Israel’s historical experiences or in her worldof thoughts? Or is this postulate less a concern of historical or theologicalknowledge and more a speculative-philosophical principle which becomesactive as a conscious premise?”


the NT has Jesus Christ as its center, the OT lacks such acenter.40 Yahweh as the center of the OT “would not be suffi-cient.“41 Why? “Unlike the revelation in Christ, the revelationof Jahweh in the Old Testament is divided up over a longseries of separate acts of revelation which are very differentin content. It seems to be without a centre which determineseverything and which could give to the various separate actsboth an interpretation and their proper theological connectionwith one another.“42 The later von Rad is less rigid in hisdenial of a center of the OT. He actually admits that “one cansay, Yahweh is the center of the Old Testament.“43 “God stoodat the center,” says von Rad, “of the (theologically ratherflexible) conception of history of the writers of ancientIsraelite history.“44 Nevertheless this is where the questionbegins for von Rad: “What kind of Yahweh after all is this?“45Is it one who hides himself more and more in every act ofself-revelation? This question can be answered best by vonRad’s own methodological procedure.

Von Rad proceeds from a kind of secret center, which re-veals itself in his basic thesis, namely that the establishmentof God’s self-revelation takes place in his acts in history:“History is the place in which God reveals the secret of hisperson.“46 With this thesis von Rad has won a “heuristic

40. TAT II, 376f.; On II, 362.41. On: II, 362f.42. TAT, I, 128; On I, 115. On the other hand, on the same page we

find that von Rad claims that OT theology has “its starting point and its centre. . [in] Jahweh’s action in revelation.”

43. 7l.Z. 88 (1963), 406. Vriezen, An Outline of OT TheoJogy2, p. 150 n. 4,seems to go astray when he implies that von Rad may make Christ the centerof the OT.

44. lZZ, 88 (1963), 409.45. Col. 406.46. I have supplied my own translation of this key sentence from TAT,

II, 349: “Der Ort, an dem Gott sein Personengeheimnis offenbart, ist dieGeschichte.” In the translation of On II, 338, part of its significance is lost:“ that it is in history that God reveals the secret of his person.” Von Raddoes not follow the usual distinction made in German between Historic andGeschichfe. He employs the term Geschichte almost to the complete exclusionof Historic, which according to the index is used only once, TA?: II, 8.


measuring rod”47 with which all statements, all witnesses offaith of the OT, are measured as to their theological relevanceand legitimacy.

Von Rad is very emphatic to point out that the OT is not abook that gives an account of historical facts as they “reallyhappened.” He states: “The Old Testament is a history book[Geschichtsbuch]; it tells of Gods history with Israel, with thenations, and with the world, from the creation of the worlddown to the last things, that is to say, down to the time whendominion over the world is given to the Son of Man (Dan.VII.l3f.).“4a Already the earliest confessions (the Credo ofDeut. 26) were historically determined, i.e., “they connect thename of this God with some statement about an action inhistory.” Von Rad explains, “This history can be described assaving history [Heilsgeschichte] because, as it is presented,creation itself is understood as a saving act of God and be-cause, according to what the prophets foretold, Gods will tosave is, in spite of many acts of judgment, to achieve itsgoal.“4g As a result of this view the Psalms and Wisdom lit-erature of the OT are accorded the position of “Israel’s an-swer”50 to the early experiences of Israel with Yahweh. TheOT prophets, on the other hand, are not reformers with amessage of an entirely new kind. “Instead, they regardedthemselves as the spokesmen of old and well-known sacraltraditions which they reinterpreted for their own day andage.‘151 Thus it becomes apparent that von Rad employs hisunderstanding of OT history as a hermeneutical schema forinterpreting the OT. The type of history of which von Radspeaks finds its clearest formulation in the Deuteronomist,whose view of history is described in the following way: “Thehistory of Israel is a course of events [Zeitablauj which re-

47. This phrase stems from Martin Honecker, “Zum Verstandnis derGeschichte in Gerhard von Rads Theologie des AT,” EvT, 23 (1963), 145.

48. TAT II, 370; On II, 415.49. TAT, II, 370f.; On: II, 357f.50. TAT I, 366ff.; OR: I, 355ff.51. TAT, II, 185; Orr; II, 175.


ceived its own peculiar dramatic quality from the tensionbetween constantly promulgated prophecies and their corre-sponding fulfilment.“52 This explains why in von Rad’s OTtheology cultic and wisdom elements recede,53 for his viewof history is interested neither in secular history nor in thehistory of faith and cult, but is concerned solely “with theproblem of how the word of Jahweh functioned in history.“54Fundamentally expressed, this means that the “Deuteronomis-tic theology of history was the first which clearly formulatedthe phenomenon of saving history, that is, of a course ofhistory which was shaped and led to a fulfilment by a wordof judgment and salvation continually injected into it.“55

The prophetic message is by von Rad likewise interpretedfrom this center, namely the Deuteronomistic theology of his-tory.56 Accordingly, one of the greatest achievements of proph-ecy “was to recapture for faith the dimension in which Jahwehhad revealed himself par excellence, that of history andpolitics.“57 The essential step of the prophets beyond thetradition of salvation history handed down to them, whichwas oriented in the past, consists in their opening the futureas the place of the action of God.5a This projection of Godsacts to the future, which is felt to be an “eschatologizing ofconcepts of history,“59 takes up the old confessional traditionsand places them with the help of “creative interpretation”60

52. TAT I, 352; 07-T, I, 340.53. Honecker, p. 146.54. TAT I, 354; OTT, I, 343.55. TAT, I, 356; OTT, I, 344.56. The problem of this one-sided interpretation of prophecy is ap-

parently known to von Rad, since he points to the question of how far theprophet was “a spiritual man who stood in direct religious relationship toGod” and a proclaimer of “the universal moral order.” “In all probability, thequestions considered by earlier criticism will one day require to be taken upagain, though under different theological presuppositions” (TAT, II, 311; O’FT,II, 298).

57. TAT II, 192; 07-T, II, 182.58. TAT, II, 129ff.; On: II, 115ff.59. TAT, II, 125ff.; On: II, 112ff.60. TAT, II, 313; 07-T, II, 300.


within the horizon of a new saving event. “Projecting the oldtraditions into the future was the only possible way open tothe prophets of making material statements about a futurewhich involved God.“Gl The eschatological character of theprophetic message consists of a negation of the old historicalbases of salvation, and in that it does not remain with pasthistorical acts, it “suddenly shifted the basis of salvation to afuture action of God.“G2 The kerygma of the prophets thustakes place within tensions created by three factors: “the neweschatological word with which Jahweh addresses Israel, theold election tradition, and the personal situation, be it onewhich incurred penalty or one which needed comfort, of thepeople addressed by the prophet.“63

In short, von Rad gains his understanding of history fromthe Deuteronomistic theology of history according to whichsalvation history is led to its goal, its fulfillment, by means ofthe word of Yahweh. This seems surprising if one considersthat von Rad’s research had its starting-point in the Hexa-teuch, from which it moved to the prophets as the closinginterpreters of the transmitted events of salvation. The escha-tologizing thought of prophecy is, however, interpreted by vonRad on the basis of the center as found in the Deuteronomistictheology of history and in this way it is bound to the primitiveheilsgeschichtiiche confession. Thus von Rad introduces intoOT theology not only a historico-relational concept but alsoa certain historico-theological center, that of the theology ofhistory of the Deuteronomistic historian, as a determinativehermeneutical schema.

Parenthetically, we may point out that a complete discus-sion of von Rad’s center as found in history should include atreatment of his exposition of salvation history as it moves inthe tension between promise and fulfillment to be finally fullyconsummated in the Christ-event. This would carry us,

61. TAT II, 312; OTI: II, 299.62. TAT II, 131; m II, 118.63. TA3: II, 140; O n : II, 130.


however, beyond the immediate scope of the question at hand.For our purpose it will suffice to point out that what is at workhere is the interrelatedness of a twofold methodology: first,the “structural analogy,” which consists of the “peculiar in-terconnexion of revelation by word and revelation by event”;64and, secondly, “typological thinking,” which is based not “onmyth and speculation, but on history and eschatology.“65 Thequestions that are raised by such a twofold methodology can-not be treated at this point. 66 In short, we must say that vonRad arrives at the crowning consummation of salvation his-tory in the Christ-event as a result of the combination of threeconceptions: the center of Deuteronomistic history; the pre-dominance of event over word; and the interpretation of his-tory from the movement along the line of tension betweenpromise and fulfillment.

As we have seen above, von Rad believes he has found thecenter from which to unlock the OT in the Deuteronomistictheology of history. This, in fact, is his hermeneutical schemafor the interpretation of the entire OT. He has, however, failedto justify the right to use such a center as a hermeneuticalkey; i.e., he has been satisfied with the phenomenologicalutilization of his center as a method for doing OT theology.One must ask whether with the same right one could not usethe so-called Priestly schema for interpreting the OT or theapocalyptic universalism of history of the Pannenberg group.6’

64. TAT II, 376; OTT, II, 363; cf. the discussion of Hasel, “The Problemof History in OT Theology,” AUSS, 8 (1970) 32-35.

65. TAT II, 378; OTT, II, 365.66. For these questions see Hans Walter Wolff, “Zur Hermeneutik des

AT,” EvT 16 (1956), 337-370, trans. “The Hermeneutics of the OT,” in EOTH,pp. 160-199; idem, “Das Geschichtsverstlndnis der alttestamentlichen Pm-phetie,” EvT 20 (1960). 218-235, trans. “The Understanding of History in theOT Prophets,” in EOTH, pp. 336-355; Walther Eichrodt, “1st die typologischeFxegese sachgemasse Exegese?” VTSupplement, IV (1957), 161-180, trans. “IsTypological Exegesis an Appropriate Method?” in EOTH, pp. 224-245; JiirgenMoltmann, “Exegese und Eschatologie in der Geschichte,” EvT 22 (1962), 61n. 75.

67. Pannenberg speaks of the concept of the apocalyptic universabsmof history in terms of an “universalgeschichtliche Konzeption” and an “uni-

THE CENTER OF THE OT AND OT THEOLOGY 1 5 1

In a twofold way von Rad admits inadvertently to a centerin the OT. On the one hand, he himself operates on the basisof a center, namely the Deuteronomistic theology of history,and on the other, he concedes more recently that it is right tosay that “God stood at the center of the (theologically ratherflexible) conception of history of the writers of ancientIsraelite history.“68 Thus it appears that von Rad’s initial Noto the question of the center of the OT is not so much directedagainst a center as such but against making such a center “aspeculative-philosophical principle, which becomes operativeas a conscious premise”6g in the doing of OT theology. Herevon Rad’s caution is to be taken seriously even though hehimself is in the last analysis unfaithful to his own warningcries. Nevertheless we are indebted to von Rad for inviting usto look for a center anew and to redefine’ its function morestrictly. We should neither return to a stage of discussionbefore von Rad70 nor should we bypass him, but we shouldgo beyond him.

So far we have restricted our discussion primarily to at-tempts which put forth a single concept, theme, motif, or ideaas the center of the OT as a unifying principle on the basis ofwhich the diversified OT materials can be organized into asystematized OT theology. It is now also necessary to refer toa number of recent approaches which do not fit into the abovepattern but still speak to the problem of the center and unityof the OT. W. H. Schmidt published a concise study on thefirst commandment in which he expressed his conviction thatdue to “the claim [at exclusiveness and uniqueness of Yahweh

versalgeschichtliches Schema,” in F&D, 5 (1959), 237, and in his “Geschichts-verstandnis der Apokalyptik,” in OaG, p. 107; cf. II. Wilckens, OaG, pp. 53f.;and Rossler, Gesetz und Geschichte, pp. lllff. For a critique of Rossler, seePhillipp Vielhauer, “Apocalypses and Related Studies: Introduction,” in EdgarHennecke, NTApocrypha, ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher, trans. R. McL. Wilson(Philadelphia, 1965) pp. 581-607, esp. 593.

68. Von Rad, IZZ, 88 (1963) 409.69. Col. 405 n. 3a.70. This seems to be the case with Smend, Die Mitte des AT, pp. 49-55,

in his revival of the formula of Wellhausen.


in] . . . the first commandment, it . . . can be used as a con-necting link between an earlier and later time and can at thesame time provide an answer to the old question concerningthe ‘unity’ or ‘center’ of the,Old Testament in the manifolded-ness of its testimonies.“71 On this basis one should be able todevelop an OT theology from the center of the exclusivenessof God as expressed in the first commandment.72 This “basiccommandment [Grundgebot]“73 supports history and viceversa.74 Therefore this commandment and its later influencedo not aim at a timeless Being or a definite structure, butremain related to history, 7s Schmidt supports the single con-cept approach referred to above as providing an organizingprinciple whereby the OT materials can be systematized intoa “certain kind of . . . structure.“76 His approach differs from

71. W. H. Schmidt, Das erste Gebot. Seine Bedeutungfiir das AT (Munich,1969), p. 11. The claim of the first commandment’s link between an earlierand later time, namely on a chronological basis, rests upon Schmidt’s positionthat this commandment was formulated only after the taking of Canaanduring a time when Israel was in controversy with neighboring religions(p. 13; cf. R. Knierim, “Das erste Gebot,” ZAM! 77 [1965], 20-39; H. Schulz,Das Todesrechtim AT [Berlin, 19691, pp. 58ff.). Agrave difficulty for Schmidt’s“chronological” center of the first commandment arises, if one dates thiscommandment with the majority of scholars at the time of Moses (cf. E Baum-gartel, “Das Offenbarungszeugnis des AT im Lichte der religionsgeschichtlich-vergleichenden Forschung,” 27K 64 [1967], 398; S. Herrmann, “Mose,” EvT28 [1968], 322; idem, Israels Aufenthalt in Agypten; W. Harrelson, “Ten Com-mandments,” IDB, IV, 572; W. Zimmerli, Der Mensch und seine Hofislung imAT [Giittingen, 19681, p. 67; G. Fohrer, Geschichte der ismelitischen Religion[Berlin, 19691, p. 74; J. J. Stamm and M. E. Andrew, 7he Ten Commandmentsin Recent Research [SBT, 212; London, 19671, pp. 22ff.; Th. C. Vriezen, TheReligion ofAncient Ismel [Philadelphia, 19671, p. 143; W. E Albright, Yahwehand the Gods of Canaan [Garden City, NY, 19681, pp. 173, 174; etc.).

72. Schmidt, Gebot, pp. 49-55.73. I! 51.74. Pp. 50f.: “Therefore the total presentation [of an OT theology] gains

in a certain sense a common thread when one develops the history of the OTas a history of the first commandment in that one questions the individualliterary productions where and how much the first commandment is broughtout in them. In this way historical and systematic methods can meet eachother.”

75. P 50.76. Ibid.


the others in that he looks for something “specific [and]special,“77 something that is exclusive and without anyanalogy in the ancient Near East and thus “ ‘genuinely’Israelite.“7*

Closely related to Schmidt’s proposed center is that ofWalther Zimmerli as outlined in the latest von Rad Fe&s&$-Pand worked out in his recent OT theology.80 Zimmerli alsobelieves that with the sentence “I am Yahweh, your God” (Ex.20:2) “an actual foundation of everything following is given.“81It is the call to which Israel answers in her responding praise“YOU . . . Yahweh” (Dt. 26:l). In this responding praise has“come to view a center which is uniquely held on to in the entireOT history of tradition and interpretation.” According to Zim-merli “the task committed to the theological work on the OT isto describe the ‘theology of the OT’ with an inquiry for this Lordwho is at work as the only Lord of the world and Israel accordingto the testimony of this first part of the Bible from the creationof the world . . . to the post exilic time.“82 Whereas Schmidtplaces emphasis on the “I . . . Yahweh’ of Exodus 20, Zimmerlistresses the confessional response “You . . . Yahweh,” of Deuter-onomy 26 which has its basis in the prior “I . . . Yahweh.“83 BothSchmidt and Zimmerli emphasize the manifoldness of traditionhistory in its witness to the name of the Lord.84 They also agreethat this recognition does not provide a way for constructing alifeless body of doctrine.85

77. P 51.78.P 50.79. W. Zimmeri, ‘Alttestamentliche Traditionsgeschichte und Theolo-

gie,” in Probleme biblischer Theologie. Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag,ed. Hans Walter Wolff (Munich, 1971), pp. 632-647.

80. Zimmerli, Grundriss der aktestamenflichen Theologie, pp. 1Of. Seethe reaction by C. Westermann, “Zu zwei Theologien des AT,” EvT, 30 (1974),102-110.

81. Zimmerli, in Probleme, p. 639.82. F? 640.83.pP.639,641.84. Pp. 641-647; Schmidt, Gebot, pp. 50f.85. Zimmerli in Probleme, p. 640; Schmidt, Gebot, pp. 50-52.


The first question concerning the centers proposed bySchmidt and Zimmerli is the justification of the choice of thisparticular commandment over any other. Why should it be thefirst commandment and not the second or another? Schmidtargues in favor of his proposed center on the basis of its lack ofanalogy in ancient Near Eastern religion and thought.86 But forthat matter, does not the lack of analogy hold true for othercommandments as well? On this basis one could possibly arguewith equal vigor for the Sabbath commandment as the center ofthe OT. It also knows unique aspects of Yahweh. He is the Creatorof heaven, earth, and sea (Ex. 20:8-11); he gave this day as a dayof rest by resting himself; he endowed it with special blessingand made it holy by separating it from the rest of time (Gen.2:2-3); he is Yahweh, their God, whose interest goes beyondIsrael’s welfare to that of the slaves, foreigners, and animals (Ex.20:8-11; Dt. 5:12-15). This commandment has likewise noanalogy in the ancient Near East. The point is that this kind ofargument in support of a center of the OT has seemingly insur-mountable deficiencies. Furthermore, if one were able to inquireof the authors of the various OT books whether or not it was theirpurpose in writing their testimonies to prove Yahweh’s exclu-siveness, it may be doubted, on the basis of what we haveavailable, that their response would be in the affirmative. Thisis not to deny that the first commandment or the response byIsrael had an important function and history in Israel. But thisis an inadequate qualification for making it the center of the OT.

Let us pause for a moment for certain basic considerations.Those to whom we have referred so far primarily agree on thematter that a single Scriptural concept, theme, motif, or ideacan be made into a center which can serve as an organizingprinciple for a sort of systematic structure of an OT theology.This is done on the basis of an unspoken presuppositionwhich has its roots in philosophical premises going back toscholastic theology of medieval times. It appears that thedoing of OT theology is at this point in the grip of a philo-

86. Schmidt, Gebot, p. 50.


sophical-speculative presupposition which claims that themultiform and multiplex OT materials in all their richmanifoldness will fit into and can be systematically orderedand arranged by means of a center. A basic and in my viewone of the most crucial and decisive hermeneutical questionsarises at this point, namely whether or not a single centralconcept, though taken from the biblical material, is sufficientand adequate in bringing about an organization of the OTmaterials in terms of a systematized “structural unity.“a’ Sur-prisingly a negative answer to this hermeneutical question isgiven even by some of those who actually argue for and haveadopted a center as an organizing principle.88 G. E. Wright hasfrankly stated: “It must be admitted that no single theme issufficiently comprehensive to include within it all variety ofviewpoint.“8g Such a recognition and the inconsistency inapplication indicate the force of the philosophical premiseunder which much of OT theology is done. It is evident thateven the most carefully worked out single center or formulawill prove itself finally to be one-sided, inadequate, and in-sufficient, if not outrightly erroneous, and therefore will leadto misconceptions.90 The phenomenon of constantly increas-ing numbers of new suggestions at what constitutes the centerof the OT and how they contribute to systematized structuresof the variegated and manifold testimonies is in itself a tellingwitness to the evident inefficiency of a single concept, theme,motif, or idea for the task at hand.

On the basis of undeniable inadequacies of a single con-

87. Eichrodt, TOT I, 31. Zimmerli speaks again of this issue in “Erwagun-gen zur Gestalt einer alttestamentlichen Theologie,” 7Z.Z 98 (19731, 81-98.

88. Among the opponents of a “structural unity” of the basic ideas ofthe OT are the following: Artur Weiser, Glaube und Geschichte im AT (Munich,1961), pp. 196f.; Barth, EvT 23 (1963), 350ff.; Honecker, EvT 23 (1963), 144ff.;von Rad, OT1: II, 362; idem, “Kritische Vorarbeiten zur einer Theologie desAT,” in Theologie und biturgie, ed. L. Hennig (Munich, 1952), p. 30; Kraus,Biblische Theologie, p. 128.

89. Wright, Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, p. 983.Kohler, OT Theology, p. 9, writes: “The Old Testament itself does not offerany scheme for that compilation we call its theology.”

90. Barth, Evl; 23 (1963), 351.


cept, theme, motif, or idea as constituting the center on thebasis of which the diversified OT materials could be’organizedinto a systematized structure some scholars have suggestedand worked out systems with the aid of broader conceptions.It is here that G. Fohrer’s “dual concept” of “the rule of Godand the communion between God and man,“91 which is saidto even “constitute the unifying element in the manifold-nes.5Yg2 of both Testaments, seeks to make its contribution.Since Fohrer has now published his OT theology, TheologischeGrzzndstmkturen cles AT (1972), it is possible to evaluatewhether or not his “dual concept” is adequate. UnfortunatelyFohrer’s attempt does not seem successful, although he pointsin the right direction. His correlation of God and man is stilltoo narrow. Fohrer was unable to structure his OT theologyon the basis of his proposal. OT eschatology is undervalued.93Wisdom theology is treated all too briefly before the majordivisions of his structure! The OT is too variegated andmanifold to be handled properly with a “dual concept.“94

S. Herrmann seems to have chosen a broader basis by hissuggestion that the book of Deuteronomy presents itself “asthe center of biblical theology.“95 This seems to have beeninspired by von Rad’s view that Deuteronomy needs to bedesignated “in every respect as the center of the OT Testa-ment.“g6 An OT theology, says Herrmann, has to have itscenter in Deuteronomy because there the “basic issues of OTtheology are concentrated in nuce.“97 In Deuteronomy suchsingle “central thoughts”98 and “structural elements”aa as “cult

91. Fohrer, 7Z, 24 (1968), 16lf.92. Fohrer, Ev?: 30 (1970), 295.93. Fohrer, fieologische Grundstrukturen des Al: pp. 262-273.94. See now especially C. Westermann, “Zu zwei Theologien des AT,”

Ev7: 30 (1974), 96-102.95. S. Herrmann, “Die konstr&tive Restauration. Das Deuteronomium

als Mitte biblischer Theologie,” in Probleme biblischer Theologie, pp. 155-170.98. Studies in Deuteronomy (SBT, l/9; Chicago, 1953).97. Herrmann in ProbJeme, 1 5 6 .p.98. E! 160.99. P 162.


unity” and “cult purity” (cf. A. Ah), exclusive worship ofYahweh, unity of Israel, election and covenant, possession ofthe land, etc. have been combined into a “unified and roundedIsraelite order for people and life” and “are the keys for theunderstanding of Israel’s historical traditions, for the structureof the Pentateuch in its combination of history and law. Stillmore these are the starting-points for the post-Josianic devel-opment of Israel and developing Judaism.“*00 This concentra-tion of OT thought in Deuteronomy is “finally the point oforientation”*01 for any OT theology no matter how differ-entiated it may turn out. Thus Herrmann emerges with thebroadest conception of a center for the OT. This is a move inthe right direction, but does it go far enough? Not all theolo-gies and conceptions of the OT come to expression in Deuter-onomy. We believe that even Deuteronomy as a center isinsufficient and too narrow. Furthermore, we must be cautiousover against the particular orientation on Deuteronomy byHerrmann as well as von Rad, Zimmerli, and Smend. It mayturn out in the course of time that Deuteronomy may have toyield its present supremacy to another emphasis as it hap-pened in an earlier period of OT research when the orientationcentering around the Tetrateuch had to be given up.lo2

Where do we go from here? A brief sketch must suffice forpointing out the direction in which a fruitful solution may befound. The great number of suggestions as to what constitutesthe center of the OT indicates not only the difficulty andacuteness of the problem, 103 but also the subjective nature ofthe undertaking. Philosophical-speculative premises thatclaim that the diverse and manifold OT testimonies can beorganized into a systematized structure by means of a singleor dual center should be radically questioned. In other words,

100. p. 166.101. p. 167.102. Smend, Die Mitte des AT p. 13.103. Dentan’s statement (Preface to OTTheologv, p. 117) is still pertinent,

namely that “no question is more vexing to writers on OT theology” than“the question of a unifying principle.”


the event-centered and word-centered104 character and man-ner of God’s revelation cannot be systematized in such a way.Will not any center which is to serve as an organizing principlefor the entire OT world of revelation and experience alwaysturn out to be a tour de force ? “The static unity of a systema-tization cannot define the dynamic unity of that growth andoutgrowing of Old Testament faith and worship.“105 Thosewho would systematize on the basis of a particular centerobviously have to superimpose that center upon the diverseand manifold encounters between God and man over so longa period and are able to deal adequately only with those partsof the rich Biblical witness that fit into the framework of thatcenter, no matter what it is. Would it be sound method-ologically, adequate hermeneutically, and proper theologicallyto lose sight of, neglect, or totally disregard theological in-sights, aspects, and emphases because they do not fit theframework of a particular center that is chosen as a unifyingelement?

Biblical theologians who opted for systematizing the Biblicalmaterials with the God-Man-Salvation (Theology-Anthro-pology-Soteriology) scheme borrowed from systematic (dog-matic) theology106 have employed an external structure based

104. Among others Wright, I&e Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentaryon the Bible, p. 984, stresses exclusively the “event-centered” nature of God’srevelation. But this is one-sided and must be complemented by a recognitionthat much in the OT is at the same time “word-centered.” Zimmerli, vl: 13(1963), lOSf., rightly emphasizes this aspect: “The single word of the prophetcontains not only a word of God, but is the Word of God” (p. 199). J. Barr,Old and New in Interpretation (New York, 1966), pp. 15-23, discusses the“word” and “act” (event) relationship in the OT, concluding that “the ‘word’emphasis might deserve to have priority” (p. 23). On this problem, see Hasel,“The Problem of History in OT Theology,” AUSS, 8 (1970), 32-35, 41-46, andabove, Chapter III.

105. I? Fannon, “A Theology of the OT-Is it Possible?” Scripture, 19(1967), 52.

106. Among those who chose the systematic theology scheme in oneway or another are: Sellin, Theologie des AT (Leipzig, 1938; Kiihler, OT The-ologv (1957); 0. Baab, The Theology of the OT (Nashville, 1949); E. Jacob,7&eologv of the OT (London, 1958); G. A. E Knight, A Christian Theology ofthe OT (London, 1959); F! van Imschoot, 7Mologie de l’AT, 2 ~01s. (Tournai,

T H E C E N T E R O F T H E O T A N D O T T H E O L O G Y 159

upon categories of thought alien to Biblical theology. The ap-proach to the Bible that searches for an interncll key, one thatgrows out of the Biblical materials themselves, can alone beexpected to be adequate and proper for a theology or theologieswhich is or are present in the Bible itself. Accordingly, the questfor the center of the OT (and the NT) which is based on the innerBiblical witnesses is not only justified but must be carried onwith utmost vigor. Such single concepts, themes, ideas, ormotifs as “covenant,“lo7 “election,“lo8 “communion,“lOg “prom-ise, “110 “the kingdom of God,“l‘ll “the rulership of God,“112“holiness” of God,113 “experience” of God,114 “God is Lord,“115and others have shown that they are too narrow a basis onwhich to construct an OT (or Biblical) theology which does notrelegate essential aspects of the OT (or Biblical) faith to aninferior and unimportant position. Therefore, twin concepts in

1954-56) of which Vol. 1 is translated Theology of the OT (Neti York, 1965);J. B. Payne, The Theology offhe Older Testament (Grand Rapids, 1962); R. C.Dentan, The Knowledge of God in Ancient IsmeZ (New York, 1968).

107. So Eichrodt and following him Wright, The OTond Theolop, p. 62;E C. Prussner, “The Covenant of David and the Problem of Unity in OTTheology,” in ?I?ansitions in Biblical Scholarship, ed. J. C. Rylaarsdam (Chi-cago, 1968), pp. 17-44, supplements the idea of the Sinai covenant as thecenter of OT theology with that of the Davidic covenant. The covenant’ssupreme position in the OT as a whole is argued from a structuralist perspec-tive by P Beauchamp, “Propositions sur l’alliance de l’AT, comme structurecentrale,” RSR, 58 (1970), 161-194. E C. Fensham, “The Covenant as GivingExpression to the Relationship between OT and NT,” TynBul, 22 (1971), 82-94,claims the covenant as the center that binds OT and NT together.

108. Wildberger, Ev’l: 19 (19591, 77f.109. Vriezen, An Outline of OT Theolo&, p. 8 and ch. 4.110. W. C. Kaiser, “The Centre of OT Theology: The Promise,” Themelios,

10 (1974), l-10; idem, “The Promise Theme and the Theology of Rest,” B&Sac,130 (1973), 135-159. Kaiser fails to demonstrate that the “promise theme” issuperior to other OT themes and overcomes any of the pitfalls associatedwith the choice of a single unifying concept.

111. So now Klein, Evr 30 (1970), 642-670, and long before himH. Schultz, OT Theology (Edinburgh, 1892) I, 56.

112. Seebass, I&D, 8 (19651, 34-42.113. J. Hlnel, Die Religion der Heiligkeit (Giitersloh, 1931), p. iii, and

Sellin, Theologie des A?: p. 19.114. Baab, Theology of the O?: p. 22.115. Kijhler, OT Theologv, p. 30.


the form of “the rule of God and the communion between Godand mm,"ll6 “Yahweh the God of Israel, Israel the people ofGod,“117 and covenant-kingdom118 have been suggested,hoping that these broader conceptions give more room for thetotal OT (or Biblical) witness. Among these broadened sugges-tions are also the positions which hold that the entire book ofDeuteronomy119 or “creation faith”120 provides the total horizonof OT (or Biblical) theology.

Our survey has indicated (1) that there two major positionson the issue of the “center” of the OT and (2) that the issueof the center involves such matters as (a) the unity of the OT,(b) the organizing principle for the writing of an OT theology,and (c) the affirmation that the OT has indeed a center butthat it is “theological’ and not organizational.121 The firstmajor position is that the OT does not have a center. As wehave seen, this was argued most forcefully for the first timeby Gerhard von Rad and has received support from variousother scholars. I? Fannon follows von Rad and thus even ques-tions the possibility of an OT theology.122 Similarly, R. N.Whybray holds that in contrast to NT theology and Biblicaltheology “only in the case of Old Testament theology is therea problem of coherence, of a ‘centre.“‘l23 In the mind of

116. Fohrer, 7Z, 24 (1968), 163.117. Smend, Die Mitie des A1: pp. 49, 55.118. R. Schnackenburg, NT lneologv Today (New York, 1965).119. Herrmann in Prubleme, pp. 155ff.120. H. H. Schmid, “Schopfung, Gerechtigkeit und Heil, ‘Schopfungsthe-

ologie’ als Gesamthorizont biblischer Theologe,” ZTK, 79 (1973), l-19, esp.p. 15: “Creation faith, namely faith that God has created and sustains theworld in its manifold orders, is not a marginal theme of biblical theology, butits basic theme as such.”

121. Jesper Hegenhaven, Problems and Prospects of OT Theology (TheBiblical Seminar; Sheffield, 1988), pp. 38-44, speaks of a “historical” levelfor establishing a center as “a sort of common denominator for all the docu-ments in the OT ‘anthology’ [which] can hardly be regarded a very meaningfulenterprise in itself” (p. 44). Nevertheless, “theologically, the idea of a ‘centre’of the OT may indeed have a certain justification” (ibid.).

122. I? Fannon, “A Theology of the OT-Is it Possible?” Scriptorium,19/46 (1967), 46-53.

123. R. N. Whybray, “OT Theology-A Non-existent Beast?,” in Scrip-


Whybray even the usage of the idea of God as a center in thesense of being the lowest or highest common denominatorwill be insufficient because “God was perceived very differ-ently at different times and by different worshippers.“lz4

The concern for the lack of a center is also most dominantin Claus Westermann. At the beginning of his book on OTtheology he states, “The New Testament clearly has its centerin the suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ, to whichthe Gospels are directed and which the Epistles take as theirstarting point. The Old Testament, however, bears no similar-ity at all to this structure, and it is thus not posssible totransfer the question of a theological center from the New tothe Old Testament. “125 Westermann is in genuine disagree-ment with Whybray and others who see such a divergency inthe various understandings of God in the OT that they ruleout an OT theology. For Westermmn, “It is the task of atheology of the Old Testament to describe and view togetherwhat the Old Testament as a whole, in all its sections, saysabout God.“*26 D. L. Baker feels that “God may legitimately beconsidered the centre of the Old Testament in the sense thathe is its origin and focus, though obviously not part of it.“127

ture: Meaning and Method. Essays Presented to Anthony YQrrell Hanson onHis Seventieth Birthday, ed. Barry T. Thompson (Pickering, North Yorkshire,1987) p. 169.

124. Ibid., p. 176.125. Claus Westermann, Elements of OT Theotogv (Atlanta, 1982), p. 9.

The German original Theologie des ATin Grundziigen (Gottingen, 1978) p. 5,reads, “Es ist daher unmoglich die Frage nach der Mitte vom Neuen Testamentauf das Alte Testament zu iibertragen.” In the German there is no statementof a “theological center” as in the English translation. It is not entirely clearwhether the adjective “theological” here comes from the translator or fromWestermann himself. But Westermann’s lectures on OT theology publishedin What Does the OTSay About God? (Atlanta, 1979), p. 12, contain the samesentence: “It is therefore not possible to translate the problem of the theolog-ical center from the New to the Old Testament.”

126. Westermann, What Does the OT Say About God?, p. 11.127. D. L. Baker, TWO Testaments, One Bible (Downers Grove, IL, 1977),

pp. 384-385. We should not overlook, however, that Baker does not follow asingle center. He states, “There is indeed a unity in the Old Testament but itcannot be expressed by a single concept” (p. 386).


In the recent view of Werner H. Schmidt, who is concernedregarding the religio-historical approach toward the formula-tion of an OT theology and who wishes to refrain from usinga “center” for the task of structuring such an enterprise, thereis “a common denominator [in the search for unity] of the OldTestament in spite of its changing history and diverse litera-ture, as well as that which binds it to the New Testament andeven to the subsequent history of theology, [and that] is thefirst commandment.“128 Schmidt insists on the “exclusive-ness” of Yahweh over against all other gods in the OT and theancient Near East.12g Zimmerli had already pointed out thatone cannot overlook the “obvious inclination toward unity inOT pronouncements that, throughout history, never recog-nized a multiplicity of gods but only the one God.“130 Zim-merli states thetically, “The right and necessity to presupposea ‘center’ of the OT arises out of the OT literature itself.“131He provides a sustained argument why this is so and supportshis earlier contention that the center is the name of Yahweh.123

A. H. J. Gunneweg questions what theological quality suchan inner OT center would have in view of a Christian theo-logical understanding, and thus his implied skepticism re-garding a center of the OT.133 But Zimmerli, Schmidt, and

128. Werner H. Schmidt, “The Problem of the ‘Centre’ of the OT in thePerspective of the Relationship Between History of Religion and Theology,”in OTEssays, 4 (1986), 46-64, quote on p. 49, which is an enlargement of his“Die Frage der ‘Mitte’ des AT im Spannungsfeld der Religionsgeschichte undTheologie,” in Gott loben das ist unser Amt Festschrift fiir D. J. Schmidt, ed.K. Jtirgensen et al. (Kiel, 1984), pp. 55-65.

129. Schmidt, “The Problem of the ‘Centre,’ ” pp. 49-55.130. W. Zimmerli, Studien zur alttestamentlichen fieologie und Prophe-

tie (TBii, 51; Munich, 1974), p. 38.131. W. Zimmerli, “Biblische Theologie I, Altes Testament,” in Theolo-

gische Realenzyklopddie, ed. G. Krause and G. Miiller (Berlin/New York,1980), VI:445.

132. Ibid., pp. 445-455.133. A. H. J. Gunneweg, Vom Verstehen des AT Eine Hermeneutik

(Giittingen, 1977), p. 79, trans. Understanding the OT (Philadelphia, 1978),p. 89; idem, “ ‘Theologie’ des AT oder ‘Biblische Theologie,’ ” in Textgemiiss.Aufsiitze und Beittige zum AT Festschrif fir Ernst Wiirthwein zum 70. Ge-burfstag, ed. A. H. J. Gunneweg and 0. Kaiser (Giittingen, 1979), pp. 39-46.


others have adequately answered the reservations and hesita-tions of Gunneweg and those like him. For example, HorstSeebass sees Biblical theology as the way to the knowledgeof God.134 He maintains that there is one God for the wholeBible of the two Testaments. These and other scholars haveresponded to the various objections for a center of the OT.The OT has a center indeed. And it is a theological center, aswe shall see, but not an organizational center on the basis ofwhich the OT can be systematized.

Bruce Birch expressed himself on the issue of the centeras an organizing principle and not a theological principle. Hespeaks of “multi-valent” approaches in the future as regardsthe structuring of an OT theology. “No single understandingof the mode of Gods working (salvation history, von Rad) nora single, central theme (covenant, Eichrodt) is capable of doingjustice to the multi-faceted witness of the Old Testament. Thisdoes not mean that one should cease the effort to find mean-ingful ways of organizing and describing the various witnessesof Old Testament faith. It does mean that future, viable ap-proaches to Old Testament theology are likely to be multi-valent, and will have to suggest ways of understanding thetensions and complementarities which exist between the dif-ferent perspectives present in the pages of the Old Testa-ment.“135

Rolf Knierim suggests one such “multi-valent” approach ina programmatic essay on the task of OT theology.136 It has hadresponses from several scholars.137 Among the most pressingissues in this debate is Knierim’s position that an OT theologyis to be systematic in nature based on priorities which are

134. Horst Seebass, Der Gott der ganzen Bibel. Bibhsche Theologie zurOrienfienmg im Glauben (Freiburg/Basel/Vienna, 1982) pp. 212-218.

135. Bruce C. Birch, “OT Theology: Its Task and Future,” HB?; 6/l (1984),vi.

136. Rolf Knierim, “The Task of OT Theology,” HBT, 6/l (1984), 25-57.137. In the same issue of HBT see Walter Harrelson, “The Limited Task

of OT Theology,” pp. 59- 64; Roland E. Murphy, “A Response to ‘The Task ofOT Theology,’ ” pp. 65-71; W. Sibley Towner, “Is OT Theology Equal to ItsTask? A Response to a Paper by Rolf I? Knierim,” pp. 73-80.


intrinsic to the OT itself. If it is to be systematic in nature,what principle, center, or theological priority is to be used?Knierim has proposed as his central organizing rubric, or whathe calls the “ultimate vantage point” from which to view theplurality of theologies in the OT, “the universal dominion ofYahweh in justice and righteousness.“138 This principle ofsystematization is said to cut “across the three essential realmsto which the Lord is related: the natural world, human cor-porate existence (including that of Israel), and individualhuman existence.“‘39

W. Sibley Towner has pressed Knierim on his “ultimatevantage point” by asking, or actually suggesting, that “theuniversal dominion of Yahweh in justice and righteousness”may not be faithful in recognizing this as a vantage pointwhich is claimed by Knierim to be “intrinsic” to the OT; it isactually relativized or conditioned by modern concerns andquestions such as the ecological crisis, the feminist issue, andthe like.140 Towner suggests further that this “ultimate vantagepoint” would be quite legitimate, even though it may be sub-jective. Towner believes that it may be valid to bring in or towrite from a subjective vantage point. Roland E. Murphylevels the charge against Knierim of introducing a “post-biblical” criterion for systematization, one borrowed from sys-tematic theology, and “while the criterion . . . is derived fromthe Bible, its use is foreign to the Bible itself.“141 Murphy doesnot deny continuities in the OT, but insists, “A biblical the-ology that aspires to be systematic goes counter to the ongoingdevelopment within the Bible. The most one can do is torecognize what might be called systems or better, biblicalcategories of thought, which are in themselves diverse andwere never conceived or recorded from the vantage point ofsytematization.“142 Murphy concludes, “I would say that I

138. Knierim, “The Task of OT Theology,” p. 43.139. Murphy, “Response to ‘The Task,“’ p. 65.140. Towner, “Is OT Theology Equal to Its Task?,” pp. 75-79.141. Murphy, “Response to ‘The Task,“’ p. 67.142. Ibid., p. 69.


doubt if Rolf Knierim’s program will work, or at least that Ido not think it is a tragedy if this or any other sytematizationof the Old Testament fails.“143

Where does this debate on systematization of an OT the-ology take us? Knierim gives an extensive and spirited re-sponse to his critics.144 This is not the place to recite thevariety of arguments used by Knierim. The largest area of hisrejoinder deals with the issue of systematization.145 In con-trast to Murphy and others he insists that the OT providesexamples of systematization, that the Tanakh in its three partsof the OT canon provides some type of systematization andhierarchy, and all of this invites us to follow what has beenstarted in the OT and those who put the OT together in itscanonical form. It seems that Knierim admits that the selec-tion of his “vantage point” or his criterion may not be all-inclusive. While he defends it over against the questionsraised, he still does not indicate why his choice is better, moreinclusive, or has higher value than other suggestions made bydifferent scholars.

In this connection it may be interesting to refer to anothersuggestion made since Knierim’s essays were written. WalterDietrich of the University of Berne published his inaugurallecture, “The Red Thread in the 0T.“14’j His opening paragraphsets out the problem: “The OT is not a book, but a librarywhich has not one but innumerable authors. It was not writtenin one sitting, but over the course of a thousand years inever-new interpretations and expansions. It does not followone theme or one intention, but of both there are immensenumbers. Inevitably the question is raised concerning theunity in diversity, for that which is maintained, which lasts-even until today.“147 Dietrich argues that the category which

143. Ibid., p. 70.144. Rolf Knierim, “On the Task of OT Theology,” HBT 6/2 (1984),

91-128.145. Ibid., pp. 108-128.146. Walter Dietrich, “Der rote Faden im AT,” Ev?: 49 (1989), 232-250.147. Ibid., p. 232.


fulfills this criterion that goes through the whole OT as a redthread and reaches to the present, thus forming its center, is“righteousness.“14s He develops further what H. Seebass sug-gested in 1986. 149 He shows how extensively “righteousness”manifests itself in all major types of OT literature.150 Dietrichagrees with Rudolf Smend that a “center” does not need toencompass the entire OT. 151 It has the advantage to continuethroughout the NT and thus serves as a bridge between thetwo Testaments.152 “The entire Pauline doctrine of righ-teousness is prefigured in the OT, since Paul has developedit from the OT, not against it [the OT], and not against theJews.“153

This is an exciting concept, but it raises the question whyfor Knierim the center is “righteousness and justice” but forDietrich only “righteousness.” In contradistinction to KnierimDietrich does not make it into a category for the systematiza-tion of an OT theology. For Knierim this is the essential point.The concept of righteousness is certainly a key theme of theOT and beyond. But is it really the one center of the OT thatreaches beyond? Can one not immediately think of a numberof other centers that also reach beyond the OT?154 The issueis, Why should this one be elevated to a hierarchical statusabove any of the other proposals? What warrant is there reallyfor it in the OT? What in the OT makes it evident on intrinsicgrounds that it is so? Few scholars will be satisfied to use the

148. Ibid., p. 232, where he entitles the first section “ ‘Gerechtigkeit’ ak

Mitte des AT.”149 . H . Seebass, “Gerechtigkeit Gottes, Zum Dialog mit Peter

Stuhlmacher,” in Einheit und Vielfalt Biblischer Theologie, ed. I. Baldermannet al. fJahrbuch fiir Bibhsche Theologie, 1; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1986), pp.115-134.

150. Ibid., pp. 237-246.151. Ibid., p. 247 n. 70.152. Ibid., pp. 248-249.153. Ibid., p. 248, with reference to 0. Hofius, “‘Rechtfertigung der

Gottlosen’ als Thema biblischer Theologie,” in Jahrbuch fiir Biblische Theolo-gie. 2 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1987), pp. 95-105.

154. See, e.g., E E Bruce, NT Development of OT Themes (Grand Rapids,1973).


statistical approach and count in the concordance how oftena term is used and in what literature of the OT it appears.This is not to question the legitimacy of such an enterpriseby itself. Nonetheless, all students of the OT know that aconcept or theme can be spoken about without ever invokingits key term or terms. Sometimes it is made fairly clear thata particular center is selected for its alleged higher hierarchi-cal status. In this case the selecting agent involves Sachtitik(content criticism) in some form or another. Since this is thecase in some instances, the criteria for such content criticismmay not be intrinsic to the OT at all. It may derive from othersources such as scholarly conventions, modern concerns,ecclesiastical interests, NT evaluations, community-of-faithdecisions, and the like. This is not to deny that such concernscarry validity, but it needs to be stated forthrightly what cri-teria for selectivity are involved.

Can the various proposals and the richness of themes ofthe OT not be recognized for what they are, expressions ofthe OT that manifest in one respect or another the richnessand multiplicity of ways in which God has communicatedwith humanity and Israel in all his relations with them? It isinevitable that one reflects on the conclusion of D. L. Baker’sinsightful study on the center of the OT “There is indeed aunity in the Old Testament but it cannot be expressed by asingle concept.“ls5 This may be the case because the uniqueGod manifested in the OT cannot be grasped in any singleway.

It is evident that the search and the suggestions made forthe “center” of the OT have not created any consensus in theprevious century and much less in this century, despite thevariety of suggestions made. This debate has, however, led toat least two major insights. One is that such a rich variety ofsuggestions-which have gained in numbers in recent yearsregardless of whether these are single, dual, or multiple cen-ters-that this smorgasbord of centers seems to demonstrate

155. Baker, mo Testaments, One Bible, p. 386.


its own inherent limitation. The centers as organizing or sys-tematizing criteria are rooted in the OT and in the OT theo-logian’s choice, but hardly in the former alone. Despite allefforts by its supporters, the case for any center intrinsic tothe OT and based on that criteria alone still lacks the powerto convince those who have made other suggestions for sucha center. In our view the OT is so rich that it does not yielda center for the systematization or organization of an OTtheology. The other insight is that there may be a center inthe OT that functions as a unifying aspect despite its richnessand variety, but it is not capable of being used as an organizingor systematizing principle or criterion for writing an OT the-ology. For convenience’ sake this may be called a “theological”center.

It is highly significant that virtually all proposals for acenter have God or an aspect of God and/or his activity forthe world and humankind as a common denominator. Thispoints inadvertently to the fact that the OT is theocentric,as the NT is christocentric. In short, God/Yahweh is the dy-namic, unifying center of the OT.15’

156. J. Lindblom, 7&e Bible: A Modern Understanding (Philadelphia,1973), p. 168, states, “From the first page [of the Bible] to the last God standsin the center.” He sees “theocentricity” as the “chief characteristic” of theBible.

157. Among those who take God/Yahweh as the center of the OT areI? R. Ackroyd, Continuity: A Contribution to the Study of the OT Religiouslfndition (Oxford, 1962), p. 31; E Baumglrtel, “Gerhard von Rads Theologiedes AT,” 7ZZ, 86 (1961), 896; A. Deissler, Die Grundbofschafi des AT(Freibu@asel/Vienna, 1972), p. 153; idem, “Der Gott des AT,” in Die Fmgenach Goti, ed. J. Ratzinger (2nd ed.; Freiburg, 1973), pp. 45-58; E. Jacob,Grundfragen ahtestarnenfhcher Theologie (Stuttgart, 1970), pp. 18-24; A. Jep-sen, “Theologien des AT. Wandlungen der Formen und Ziele,” in Bericht vonder Theologie, ed. G. Kulicke et al. (Berlin, 19711, pp. 15-32, esp. 24-26;Abraham J. Heschel, Man Is Not Alone (New York, 1951), p. 129; Lindblom,The Bible: A Modern Understanding, p. 166; C. R. North, “OT Theology andthe History of Hebrew Religion,” Sfl 2 (19491, 122-23; K. H. Miskotte, Whenthe Gods Are Silent (New York, 1967), pp. 193-194; Reventlow, Emblems ofOT Theology pp. 131-133 with literature; H.-J. Stoebe, “iiberlegungen zurTheologie des AT,” in Gaffes Won und Goftes Land. H.-W Hertzberg zum 70.Geburtstag, ed. H. Graf Reventlow (Gottingen, 1965), p. 208; S. Wagner, “ ‘Bib-lische Theologien’ und ‘Biblische Theologie,’ ” 7Z.Z 103 (1978) 794;


In affirming God as the dynamic, unifying center of the OT,one must be reminded that the OT (or the NT) does not speak ofthe existence, nature, and activity of God in an abstract man-ner.158 Yet, “God is the beginning, center, and end of the OldTestament.“1s9 Gods existence is not only assumed but provenin the manifoldness of his self-revelation. The manner of Godsself-disclosure takes the form of the revelation of his nature inactions as they relate to the world and man. The OT speaks ofGod with regard to his deed and word as they relate to men andnations in creation,160 nature, and history. God introduces andidentifies himself by great events in deeds and words, and it isaround them that Israel responds in praise and worship, and thatBiblical literature originates. God is shown as the God of theworldlG1 and of Israel in that he bound himself to humankindand Israel in a special manner through election and covenant.But God has also bound himself in a special way to humankind,for man is created in the image of God, indicating among otherthings the token of man’s intimate relation with his Maker.

At every juncture in the OT God shows himself as active.His activity has broad aspects and wide relations. Neverthe-less a most fundamental OT claim for God is his saving ac-tivity.162 Quantitatively Gods saving activity for Israel is at-tested from the gracious redemption from Egyptian bondagethrough the time of the judges and kings and receiving newimpetus in the salvation from Babylonian exile. But Gods

E. Zenger, “Die Mitte der alttestamentlichen Glaubensgeschichte,” Kate-chetische Bkifter; 101 (1976), 3-16.

158. Fohrer, 7Z, 24 (1968), 161.159. Jacob, Grundfrogen ahfestamentbcher Theologie, p. 18.160. Schmid, Z’I’K 70 (1973) 1-19, seems to go too far in his claim that

“creation” faith and theology is the “basic theme” of the OT as such. Hiscontribution rests in the fact that he points to a painfully neglected aspectof the total witness and reality of the OT.

161. R. Knierim, “Offenbanmg im AT,” in Robleme bibhscher Theologie,pp. 228f., shows that the experience of OT reality includes Yahweh’s revela-tion in the world of nature which led to a recognition of Yahweh as the Godof the world.

162. This is barely touched on by Zimmerli, Grundriss der ahfestament-lichen Theologie, p. 19. Cf. Westermann, Ev’l: 39 (1974) 195f.


saving action is not restricted to Israel’s national entity alone,because in the Psalms the salvation of the individual is pre-dominant. The historical books make their own contributionto the notion of individual salvation. Furthermore, Godssaving and redeeming activity is not restricted to Israel alone.God saved Noah from the destruction of the flood. The divinesaving purpose reaches out to all nations and all men (Jonah;Isa. 40-66; Ezek.; etc.). The divine “I” appears again163 withregard to the world and Israel, to believer and unbeliever, inboth judgment and salvation, as the self-disclosure and rev-elation of the God who leads and guides men on their way inhistory toward a promising future. Yahweh promises his guid-ing presence.164 Faith in God leads to right action in thepresent and to confidence in the future since it rests on trust-ing in the experience of Gods power in the past. The profoundtestimonies of the OT witness to Gods concern for man, tohis words and deeds in Israel and among the nations, to thepurpose of God in bridging the gulf between himself and fallenman, and to the restoration of communion and harmony be-tween himself and man and between man and his fellow-man.So man is led constantly forward into the future. This historyas the “way” of Yahweh 165 leads to an ever deepening andmore complete knowledge of God and an increasing expecta-tion of an as yet outstanding final revelation of God.

An OT theology .which recognizes God as the dynamicunifying center is not forced into making this center a staticorganizing principle.166 With God as the dynamic unifying

163. E Baumgartel, “Die Formel n%m Jahwe,” ZAW 73 (1961), 277-290;H. W. Wolff, Dodekapropheton-Amos (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1967), pp. 123f.,165f., 169f. The “I am”-formula by which God announced Himself is also ofsignificance (cf. K. Koch, The Growth of the Biblical ??-adition [New York,19691, pp. 10, 21, 31). On the whole see’the valuable summary by H. D.Preuss, Jahweglaube und Zukunftserwartung (Stuttgart, 1968), pp. 19ff.

164. See here the motif of the presence of God as it comes to expressionin the phrase “. . . I will be with you.” Cf. H. D. Preuss, “. . . ich will mit dirsein!” ZAB? 80 (1968), 139-173.

185. Preuss, Jahweglaube und Zukunftserwartung, pp. 71-108.166. G. E Hasel, “The Problem of the Center in the OT Theology Debate,”

ZAW 86 (1974) 65-82.


center, the OT allows the Biblical writings or blocks of writ-ings to speak for themselves in that their individual theolo-gies are allowed to emerge. Wisdom theology, creation the-ology, and others are not forced to fit into a unilinear andlimiting center, concept, theme, or motif at the expense ofrelegating large portions to an inferior status or to neglectthem altogether.

An OT theology which recognizes God as the dynamic,unifying center provides the possibility to describe the richand variegated theologies and to present the various longi-tudinal themes, motifs, and ideas. In affirming God as thedynamic, unifying center of the OT we also affirm that thiscenter cannot be forced into a static organizing principle onthe basis of which an OT theology can be structured. Althoughthis affirmation means that we have anticipated what we laterdescribe as the emergence of the “hidden inner unity,“167 wemust allow the individual Biblical writings or blocks of writ-ings to present their own theologies. Accordingly, wisdomtheology, creation theology, etc. are permitted to take theirrightful place and are not relegated to an inferior status orcompletely left out of consideration.

The question of the center of the OT touches most basicallyon the nature of the unity and continuity of the OT. With therecognition that God is the dynamic, unifying center of theOT one can speak of the unity and continuity of the OT in itsmost fundamental sense. Unity and continuity has its sourcein God, in the manifoldness of His self-revelation in acts andwords. The OT shows itself at the same time as an “openbook’ which points beyond itself. The NT also witnesses tothe centrality of God and His judging and saving work forIsrael and the world. As these common aspects of both Testa-ments come into focus we must break off. The next chapterdiscusses major aspects of the relationship between the OTand NT in the current debate.

167. Below, Chapter VI, 56.

I? The Relationshipbetween the Testaments

For every Christian theologian OT theology is and must re-main a part of Biblical theology. Separate treatments of thetheology of the OT and NT were produced ever since the year1797 when the first Theologie des Alten Testaments was pub-lished by Georg Lorenz Bauer. We are reminded anew byG. Ebeling that the Biblical theologian has to study the inter-connection between the Testaments and “has to give an ac-count of his understanding of the Bible as a whole, i.e. aboveall of the theological problems that come of inquiring into theinner unity of the manifold testimony of the Bible.“’ Thisraises the questions of continuity and discontinuity, ofwhether one reads uniquely from the OT to the NT or fromthe NT back into the OT, or reciprocally from the OT to theNT and the NT to the OT. Basic to the whole question is notmerely an articulation of the theological problem of the inter-relatedness between the two Testaments but also an inquiryinto the nature of this unity and disunity, whether it is oneof language, thought-forms, or content. It is not necessary atthis point to present a comprehensive sketch of the positionsscholars take currently on these problems.2 We may limit

1. Word and Faith, p. 96.2. The following studies are especially concerned with this problem:

A. A. van Ruler, The Christian Church and the OT, trans. G. W. Bromiley(Grand Rapids, 1971); S. Amsler, EAT dons I’eghse (Neuchatel, 1960); J. D.Smart, 77ie Interpretation of Scripture (Philadelphia, 1961); I? Grelot, Sens

172

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TESTAMENTS 173

ourselves to significant recent attempts which mirror themajor positions.

Some scholars have posited the problem of the relationshipbetween the Testaments by designating the OT in fact as abook of a non-Christian religion. It is the merit of RudolfBultmann to seek the connection between the Testaments inthe factual course of Israel’s history.3 But Bultmann deter-mines this connection in such a way that OT history is ahistory of failure. The application of the Lutheran law/gospeldistinction4 and a modern type of Christomonism5 leads himto view the OT as a “miscarriage [Scheitern] of history” whichonly through this failure turns into a kind of promise.6 “Tothe Christian faith the Old Testament is no longer revelationas it has been, and still is, for the Jews.” To the Christian “thehistory of Israel is not history of revelation.“’ “Thus the OldTestament is the presupposition of the New”* and nothingmore nor anything less. Bultmann argues for the completetheological discontinuity between the OT and NT. The rela-

chretien de I’AT (Tournai, 1962); OTCE C. Westermann, The OT and JesusChrist (Minneapolis, 1970); R. E. Murphy, “The Relationship Between theTestaments,” CBQ, 26 (1964), 349-359; idem, “Christian Understanding of theOT,” neology Digest, 18 (19701, 321f.; E Hesse, Das AT als Buch der Kirche(Gtitersloh, 1966); K. Schwarzwaller, DOS ATin Christus (Zurich, 1966); idem,“Das Verhaltnis AT-NT im Lichte der gegenwartigen Bestimmungen,” Ev’l: 29(1969), 281-307; F? Benoit and R. E. Murphy, eds., How Does the ChristianConfront the 07? (New York, 1967); A. H. J. Gunneweg, “Dber die Pradika-bilitat alttestamentlicher Texte,” ZTK, 65 (1968), 389-413; N. Lohfink, TheChristian Meaning of the OT (Milwaukee, 1968); H.-D. Preuss, “Das AT in derVerktindigung der Kirche,” Deutsches Pfarrerblaff, 63 (1968), 73-79; Kraus,Biblische Theologie, pp. 193-395. Additional bibliography can be derived fromall these studies.

3. Cf. Bultniann, in EOTH, pp. 50-75, and in 07CF pp. 8-35.4. OTCE pp. 22-30.5. On this the critique of Wright, tie OT and Theology, pp. 30-38, is

especially relevant.6. Bultmann, EOTH, p. 73: ‘I. . . the miscarriage of history actually

amounts to a promise.” See on this Barr, Old and New in Interpretation, pp.162f.; “The OT and the New Crisis of Biblical Authority,” Znterp, 25 (1971),30-32.

7. Bultmann, EOTH, p. 31.8. OTCE p. 14.


tionship between the two Testaments “is not theologicallyrelevant at a11.“g Nonetheless this history has according to hima promissory character precisely because in the failure of thehopes centered around the covenant concept, in the failure ofthe rule of God and his people, it becomes clear that “thesituation of the justified man arises only on the basis of thismiscarriage [Scheitem] .“I0 In answer to this position, WaltherZimmerli has rightly asked whether for the NT “the hopesand history of Israel are really only shattered.” “Is there notfulfillment here, even in the midst of the shattering?’ Herecognizes clearly that the concept of failure or shatteringbecomes the means by which Bultmann is able “to elevate theChrist-message purely out of history in existential interpreta-tion. . . .” Zimmerli suggests not without reason that the con-cept of a pure brokenness of Israel’s history must of necessitylead to an unhistorical conception of the Christ-event, namelya “new Christ-myth.“11 He points out that an aspect of shat-tering is present even in the OT, where the prophets them-selves bear witness to the freedom of Yahweh to “legitimatelyinterpret his promise through his fulfillment, and the inter-pretation [by Yahweh] can be full of surprises even for theprophet himself.“12 W. Pannenberg notes that the reason Bult-mann finds no continuity between the Testaments “is certainlyconnected with the fact that he does not begin with the prom-ises and their structure which for Israel were the foundationof history, . . . promises which thus endure precisely inchange.“13

The conviction of Friedrich Baumgartel shares with Bult-mann the emphasis of the discontinuity between the Testa-ments.14 But Baumgartel is not able to follow Bultmann’s thesis

9. I? 13. Cf. Westermann’s critique in EOTH, pp. 124-128.10. Bultmann, EOTH, p. 75.11. “Promise and Fulfillment,” EOTH, pp. 118-120.12. I! 107.13. Pannenberg, “Redemptive Event and History,” EOTH, pp. 325f.14. I? Baumgartel, Verheissung. Zur Fmge des evangelischen Verstiind-

nisses des AT (Giitersloh, 1952), p. 92.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TESTAMENTS 1 7 5

of a total failure. He assumes an enduring “basic-promise[Grundverheissung] .“I5 All the OT promises (promissiones)“really have no relevance for us”16 except the timeless basic-promise (promissum) “I am the Lord your God.“17 Hecompletely abandons the proof from prophecy as unacceptableto our historical consciousness. Beyond this Baumg&rtel seesthe meaning of the OT only in that its frustrated “salvation-disaster history” exemplifies the way of man under law. As suchthe OT contains a “witness of a religion outside the Gospel.“18“Viewed historically it has another place than the Christianreligion,“lg for the OT “is a witness out of a non-Christianreligion.“20 Here Baumgartel comes close to the position ofBultmann in relating the Testaments to each other in terms ofthe Lutheran law/gospel dichotomy. Baumgartel, therefore,maintains that the historicity of Jesus Christ is not grounded inthe OT but solely in the Incarnation.21 One comes to recognizehow in such an approach “the historicity of Jesus Christ fallswhen the history of Israel falls.“22 C. Westermann points outthat Baumgartel ultimately admits “that the church could alsolive without the Old Testament.“23 Von Rad attacks the un-historical concept of “basic-promise” by characterizing the sep-aration of such a single promise from particular historicallyrealized promises and prophecies as a “presumptuous en-croachment”24

Baumgartel’s former student Franz Hesse makes the samebasic reduction of the manifold promises to the single basic-

15. F. Baumg&rtel, “The Hermeneutical Problem of the OT,” EOIH,p. 151.

16. I? 132.17. I? 151.18. F! 156.19. I? 135; cf. ?zZ, 806.20. EOTH, 1 4 5 .p.21. I? 156.22. Pannenberg, EOTH, p. 326.23. “Remarks on the theses of Bultmann and Baumg;irtel,” EOTH, p. 133.24. “Verheissung,” Ev?: 13 (1953), 410. See also the incisive criticism

against Baumg;irtel by Gunneweg, m 65 (1968), 398-400.


promise.25 In the OT the promises failed. This is due to thechastening hand of God that made Israel harden their hearts.By turning Gods word into its opposite, it is a warning anda dialectical witness to Gods activity in Israel which cuhni-nates in Christ’s cross.26 Hesse pronounces the sharpest theo-logical strictures on the OT on the ground that certain his-torical data supposedly do not fit the facts.27 Therefore theOT can have meaning for the Christian only in pointing himtoward the salvation which is found in the NT.28 The criti-cisms against Baumgartel apply also to Hesse. It will not do,as it happened again and again in the case of E D. E. Schleier-macher29 and still happens with Baumgartel3’J and Hesse,31 todiscuss the NT arguments of fulfillment of prophecy as noth-ing but an anti-Jewish apologetic, relevant only to the NTperiod.s2 It is a mistake to believe, as Bultmann does, that themeaning of the “proof from Scripture” has as its purpose to“prove” what can only be grasped by faith, or to approach andcriticize the NT’s method of quotation from the point of viewof modern literary criticism .33 Over against this limited posi-tion one must maintain that the NT quotations presupposethe unity of tradition and indicate keywords and major motifsand concepts in order to recall a larger context within the OT.

In direct contrast to the position just described are thoseattempts that place primary emphasis on the OT by makingit all-important theologically. Wilhelm Vischer wants the ex-egesis of the OT to be dominated by the NT, thereby makingthe OT all-important.34 “Strictly speaking only the Old Testa-

25. Das AT als Buch der Kimhe, p. 82.26. “The Evaluation and Authority of the OT Texts,” in EOTH, pp.

308-313.27. Pp. 293-299.28. P 313.29. The Christian Faith (2 ~01s.; New York, 1963).36. Verheissung, p. 75ff.31. Das AT als Buch der Kirche, pp. 82ff.32. Pannenberg, EOTH, p. 324.33. Bultmann, EOTH, pp. 50-55, 72-75.34. Das Christuszeugnis des AT Das Gesetz (7th ed.; Zollikon, 1946);

trans. The W%ness of the OT to Christ (London, 1949).

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN -THE TESTAMENTS 1 7 7

ment is ‘The Scripture,’ while the New Testament brings thegood news that now the meaning of these writings, the importof all their words, their Lord and fulfiller, has appeared incar-nate.“35 In very similar terms A. A. van Ruler explains that“the Old Testament is and remains the true Bible.“36 The NTis but “its explanatory glossary [Wrterverzeichnis] .“37 In strictdialectic “The New Testament interprets the Old Testamentas well as the Old the New.“38 The central concern in thewhole Bible is not reconciliation and redemption but thekingdom of God. For this the OT is of special importance,namely it brings its legitimization, foundation, interpretation,illustration, historicization, and eschatologization.3g VanRuler thereby reduces the relationship between the Testa-ments to the single spiritual denominator of the kingdom ofGod, reading the NT very one-sidedly without recognizing thedistinction between theocracy and eschatology.40

Klaus Schwarzwaller’s position should be briefly men-tioned here. His thesis is that the OT relates to the NT interms of the formula of “course of proof and result.“41 The OTcan be understood only from Christ because it points forwardto him. “The Christ event presupposes the history of the oldcovenant and points back into its testimonies.“42 His positionhas so far found little response.

On the whole it must be said that the Christological-theocratic approaches to the unity of the Testaments posespecial difficulties because they telescope and virtually elim-inate the varieties of the Biblical testimonies. They suffer froma reductionism of the multiplicity of OT thought, which

35. W&ness, 7 - 8 . C f . Schwarzwtiller,pp. Ev7: 29 (1969), 281-285, for asympathetic evaluation of Vischer’s importance in contemporary theology.

36. Van Ruler, ‘I?re Christian Church and the O’I: p. 72.37. I? 74 n. 45.38. I? 82.39. Pp. 75-98.49. A very incisive critique of van Ruler’s position has been given by

Th. C. Vriezen, “Theocracy and Soteriology,” EOTH, pp. 221-223.41. Das AT in Christus, pp. 51-56.42. Ev?: 29 (1969), 305.


merely becomes a pale reflection of the Messiah to come. Herethe somewhat shrill cry of “Christomonism”43 has a point.With G. E. Wright, J. Barr, and R. E. Murphy44 it seems thatthe lines of a Trinitarian approach better meet the needs ofdelineating the relationship between the Testaments. This ap-proach preserves the sensus litterulis of the OT testimony andavoids the development of a hermeneutical method basedmerely on the NT usage of OT texts. Once the true meaningof Christ is grasped within the context of the Trinity, then onecan say that Christ is the destination and at the same time theguide to the true understanding of the OT. W. Vischer onceposed the question that remains crucial: “Is the interpretationwhich sees in the whole of the Old Testament a testimony toJesus the Messiah correct, or is it a violent distortion of theOld Testament scriptures?“45

A recent major approach to delineate the relationship be-tween the Testaments is by reverting to typology. W. Eichrodt46and G. von Rad4’ have been staunch supporters. Eichrodt uses

43. Wright, The OTand Theology, pp. 13-38. He protests against resolvingthe tension between the OT and NT in terms of a “new kind of monotheismbased on Christ” (“Historical Knowledge and Revelation,” in Understandingand Translating the 01: p. 302).

44. Wright, Understanding and Translating the OT, pp. 391-393; Barr, Oldand New in Interpretation, pp. 151-154; Murphy, Theology Digest (1970), 327.

45. WTtness, p. 27. Of course, Vischer gives an affirmative answer to thequestion. He designates Jesus as the “hidden meaning of the Old Testamentscripture” (p. 28). In his book Die Bedeutung des ATjIr das chrisfliche Leben(Zurich, 1947), p. 5, he writes: ‘All movements of life of which the OT reportsmove from him jJesus] and towards him. The life-stories of all these men arepart of his life-story. Therefore they are written with so little biographicalinterest for the individual persons. What is written about them is actuallywritten as a part of the biography of the One through whom and towardswhom they live.” This would mean that we can reconstruct a biography ofJesus from the OT. If V&her’s position were correct it is difficult to perceivewhy the OT speaks in the first place about Abraham and Moses. Why doesit not speak right away about Jesus, and why does it speak of him only insuch “hidden” form?

46. “Is ‘Qpological Exegesis an Appropriate Method?,” in EOTH, pp.224-245.

47. “Typological Interpretation of the OT,” in EOTH, pp. 17-39; 07T, II,364-374.


typology “as the designation for a peculiar way of looking athistory.” The types “are persons, institutions, and events of theOld Testament which are regarded as divinely established mod-els or prerepresentations of corresponding realities in the NewTestament salvation history.“48 His exposition appears to agreewith the traditional views of earlier Christianity. But he differsfrom the views of von Rad, whose basic premise it is that “TheOld Testament is a history book.“49 It is the history of God’speople, and the institutions and prophecies within it, thatprovide prototypes to the antitypes of the NT within the wholerealm of history and eschatology.50 Von Rad is very broadlybased, as can be gathered from his relating Joseph to Christ astype to antitype.

Some scholars reject the typological approach completely.52However, the importance of the typological approach is notto be denied, if it is not developed into a hermeneutic methodwhich is applied to all texts like a divining-rod. Typologicalcorrespondence must be rigidly controlled on the basis ofdirect relationship between various OT elements and their NTcounterparts in order that arbitrary and fortuitous personalviews may not creep into exegesis.53 One should be cautiousenough not to be trapped into applying typology as the singledefinite theological ground-plan whereby the unity of the

48. EOTH, p. 225.49. EOTH, p. 25; cf. 07-F, II, 357.50. OTI: II, 365.51. OTT, II, 372.52. E Baumglrtel, TLZ, 86 (1961), 809, 897, 901-906. R. Lucas, “Consid-

erations of Method in OT Hermeneutics,” The Dunwoodie Review, 6 (1966),35: “Typology lacks that criterion which would establish both its limitationand validity. . . . It is a theology of biblical texts. It leaves the Old Testamentbehind, in the last analysis, and discovers its significance outside and beyondits historical testimony.” Murphy, Theology Digest, 18 (1970), 324, believesthat typology is not creative enough for the possibilities of theology and incomparison to the early Church “it is simply less appealing to the moderntemper.” See also Barr, Old and New in Interpretation, pp. 103-148, who isnot willing to separate typology from allegory.

53. See also, with regard to a proper usage of typology, the remarks byH. W. Wolff, “The Hermeneutics of the OT,” in EOTZZ, pp. 181-186; andVriezen, An Outline of OT 7heolo&, pp. 97, 136f.


Testaments is established. The advocacy of typological unitybetween the Testaments is not primarily concerned to find aunity of historical facts between the OT prefiguration and itsNT counterpart,54 though this is not to be denied altogether;it is more concerned to recognize the connection in terms ofa structural similarity between type and antitype. It is undeni-able that the typological analogy begins with a relationshipwhich takes place in history. For example, the typologicalanalogy between Moses and Christ in 2 Cor. 3:7ff. and Heb.3:1-6 begins with a relationship that takes place in history;but the concern is not with all the details of the life and serviceof Moses, but primarily with his “ministry” and “glory” in theformer passage and with his “faithfulness” as leader and me-diator in the divine dispensation in the second passage. It isequally true that the NT antitype goes beyond the OT type.55Even if it is correct, at least to some degree, that the courseof history which unites type and antitype emphasizes thedistinction between them, while the connection is primarilydiscovered in its structural analogy and correspondence, thisshould not be used as an argument against typology unlesstypology is seen only in terms of a historical process.56 Theconceptual means of the typological correspondence has its

54. Von Rad, however, EOTH, pp. 17-19, advocates that the typologicalapproach seeks to “regain reference to the facts attested in the New Testa-ment,” i.e., to discover the connection in the historical process.

55. Eichrodt, EOTZZ, pp. 225f.56. This is where Pannenberg, EOTH, p. 327, goes astray. For him the

only analogy that has any value is the historical one. Pannenberg adopts the“promise and fulfillment” schema without realizing that this “structure”(p. 325), as he repeatedly calls it, functons in his own presentation as anotherinstance of a timeless principle being employed to replace history. Pannenbergemphasizes that freeness, creativeness, and unpredictability are central inhistory, but he finds this central aspect of history preserved only in that thefulfillment often involves the “breaking down” of the prophecy as a “legiti-mate interpretation,” a “transformation of the content of prophecy,” which is“fulfilled otherwise” than the original recipients of the prophetic word ex-pected (p. 326). Here Pannenberg has unconsciously conceded the incompati-bility between history and its structure. Thus even in Pannenberg’s position,structure and construction tend to replace history and render his use of thepromise-fulfillment structure unhistorical.


distinct place in its expression of the qualification of theChrist-event, but it is in itself not able to express fully theChrist-event in terms of OT history. Therefore additional ap-proaches will need to complement the typological one. TheBible is too rich in relations between God and man for it tobe confined to one special connection. Whereas we must nothesitate to accept typological references in definite cases,every attempt to view the whole from a single point of viewmust beware of wishing to explain every detail in terms ofthis one aspect and to impose an overall picture upon thevariety of possible relations. While the OT context must bepreserved in its prefiguration so that NT meanings are notread into the OT texts, it seems that a clear NT indication isnecessary so that subjective imaginative fancies and arbitrarytypological analogies can be avoided. That is to say that thequestion of the a posteriori character of the typological ap-proach should not be suppressed.

A prominent approach for coming to grips with the ex-tremely complex question of the relationship between the OTand the NT is by way of the promise-fulfillment schema, asdeveloped by C. Westermam, W. Zimmerli, G. von Rad, andothers.57 This approach maintains that the OT contains a “his-tory of promise which comes to fruition in the NT.“58 This doesnot mean that the OT describes what was promised and the NTwhat has been fulfilled.59 The OT already knows promise andfulfillment. W. Zimmerli makes the point that the promise,

57. C. Westermann, “The Way of Promise through the OT,” in OTCE pp.200-224; idem, The OT and Jesus Christ (Minneapolis, 1970); W. Zimmerli,“Promise and Fulfillment,” in EOTH, pp. 89-122; G. von Rad, “Verheissung,”.!?vl: 13 (1953), 406-413; R. E. Murphy, “The Relationship Between the Testa-ments,” CBQ, 26 (1964), 349-359; idem, “Christian Understanding of the OT,”TheoZogV Digest, 18 (1970). 321-332.

58. Murphy, Theology Digest, 18 (1970), 328.59. This is obviously the way in which Fohrer, lZ, 24 (1968), 171f.,

understands the category of promise-fulfillment. If this mistake is avoided,then there is no conflict between the promise-fulfillment category andFohrer’s beginning-continuation category. Both formulae essentially agree butplace emphasis on slightly different aspects.


when it receives the character of fulfillment in history throughYahweh’s guidance and word, receives again a new character ofpromise.60 In this way the fulfillment has an open end, lookingon to the future.6l This eschatological aspect is present in bothTestaments. Westermann remarks: “Promise and fulfillmentconstitute an integral event which is reported in both the Oldand New Testaments of the Bible.” In view of the multiplexcharacter of the relationship between the Testaments, Wester-mann admits that under the single idea of promise-fulfillment“it is not possible to sum up everything in the relation of theOld Testament to Christ.“62 On a more comprehensive scale, wemust admit that the promise-fulfillment schema does not sumup everything in the relation between the Testaments. As fun-damental and fruitful as the promise-fulfillment approach is, itis not by itself able to describe the multiplex nature of therelationship between the Testaments.

If we raise the question how the OT can be related adequatelyand properly to the NT, then we have admittedly decided on ana priori basis that both are related to each other in some way. Wemust be conscious of this decision, which always has a bearingon our questioning of the OT materials. This prior decision doesnot come easily. This is true especially when the OT is viewedin the way in which von Rad looks at it, namely that “the OldTestament can only be read as a book of ever increasing antici-pation” This claim presupposes a particular understanding ofthe OT history of tradition, i.e., one which is from the beginningfocusing upon the transition to the NT. Von Rad’s view finds itsjustification only in terms of a direct line of connection thatmoves from the testimony of the initial action of God toward

60. “Promise and Fulfillment,” EOTH, p. 112.61. This tension between promise and fulfillment is a dynamic charac-

teristic of the OT. Since this is a basic kind of interpreted history which theOT and NT themselves present to us, J. M. Robinson’s attempt (OTCF p. 129)to dismiss the category of promise-fulfillment as a structure imposed onBiblical history from without is abortive.

62. The OT and Jesus Christ, p. 78.63. TAT II, 331; On: II, 319.

THE RELATIOIJSHIP BETWEEN THE TESTAMENTS 1 8 3

judgment and on to the expectation of Gods renewed action inwhich God yet proves his divine character. It is amazing to seehow Israel never allowed a promise to come to nothing, how shethus swelled Yahweh’s promise to an infinity, and how, placingabsolutely no limit on Gods power yet to fulfill, she transmittedthe promises still unfulfilled to generations to come. Thus wemust ask with von Rad, “does not the way in which comparativereligion takes hold of the Old Testament in abstraction, as anobject which can be adequately interpreted without reference tothe New Testament, turn out to be fictitious from the Christianpoint of view?“64 On the other hand, there is nothing mysteriousabout coming to grips with the question of the relationshipbetween the Testaments. Initially, therefore, we do not beginfrom the NT and its manifold references to the OT. This methodhas often been adopted, most recently again by B. S. Childs, aswe have noted above. It has also led all too often to contrastingthe Testaments with a sharpness that does not do justice to thegreat hermeneutical flexibility of the relationship between them.A proper method will then initially be an attempt to showcharacteristic ways in which the OT leads forward to the NT.The NT can then on the basis of this initial approach alsoenlighten the content of the OT.

In view of these considerations, it would seem that the onlyadequate way to come to grips with the multiplex nature ofthe relationship between the Testaments is to opt for a mul-tiplex approach, which makes a guarded and circumspect useof typology, employs the idea of promise-fulfillment, and alsouses in a careful way the approach of Heilsgeschichte.65 Sucha multiplex approach leaves room for indicating the variety

64. TAT II, 333; OTT, II, 321.65. We cannot go into the manifold ramifications of the salvation history

approach, its weak and strong points as well as its varied use among pastand present theologians. Yet this approach should not be dismissed too easily.For a recent exposition of this approach, see 0. Cullmann, Salvation in History(New York, 1967). A critique is given by D. Braun, “Heil als Geschichte,” Evl:27 (1967), 57-76. See also the appreciative evaluation of this approach byKraus, Biblische lheologie, pp. 185-187.


of connections between the Testaments and avoids, at thesame time, the temptation to explain the manifold testimoniesin every detail by one single point of view or approach andso to impose a single structure upon testimonies that witnessto something else. A multiplex approach will lead to a recog-nition of similarity and dissimilarity, old and new, continuityand discontinuity, etc., without in the least distorting theoriginal historical witness and literal sense nor falling shortin the larger kerygmatic intention and context to which theOT itself testifies.

It is not surprising that in the recent debate about thecomplex nature of the relationship between the Testamentsthe question of the proper context has become crucial. VonRad himself speaks of “the larger context to which a specificOld Testament phenomenon belongs. . . .“G6 He reflects theconcern of H. W. Wolff, who maintains that “in the New Testa-ment is found the context of the Old, which, as its historicalgoal, reveals the total meaning of the Old Testament. . . .“67The systematic theologian Hermann Diem expresses himselfto the extent that “for the modern interpretation of Scriptureit can be no question needing judgment whether the inter-pretation will follow the apostolic witness and read the OTwith their eyes or whether it will read presuppositionless,which would mean to read it as a phenomenon of generalhistory of religion. . . .“68 In a similar vein Kurt Friir maintainsthat “the canon forms the given and compulsory context forall single texts and single books of both Testaments.“6s Theidea of “context” should not be limited to the nearest relation-ship of a pericope, not even to the connection within a bookor historical work. With regard to the larger connections thecanon as a given fact receives hermeneutic relevance. “Thefirst step on the path of the continuation of the self-interpreta-

66. OTT, II, 369.67. EOTH, p. 181.68. H. Diem, Theologie als kimhliche WTssenschaft (Gtitersloh, 1951), I,

75; cf. his Was heisst schri~gemass? (Giitersloh, 1958) pp. 38f.69. Biblische Hermeneutik (3rd ed.; Munich, 1967), p. 65.


tion of the text is to give ear to the remaining Scripturalwitnesses.“70 Hans-Joachim Kraus has sensed what Eichrodtmeant when the latter emphasized that “only where this two-way relationship between the Old and New Testaments isunderstood do we find a correct definition of the problem ofOT theology and of the method by which it is possible to solveit. “‘1 As regards Kraus, his assessment of the matter of thecontext shows that “the question of the context is decisive forthe connection of texts and themes. This means for the OTundertaking of Biblical-theological exegesis: How do the Oldand New Testaments refer to certain kerygmatic intentionsapparent in a text?“72

In this connection it is of great importance to explicate whatit means that OT theology-and also NT theology-is boundto the given connections of the texts in the canon. AlfredJepsen writes “that the interpretation of the Old Testament,being the interpretation of the church’s canon, is determinedby its connection with the New Testament and by the ques-tions that follow from it. “73 If properly conceived, no violenceis done to the message of the OT, for what the interpreterreceives from the side of the NT is primarily the question, thepoint of view. To have the right question means to be able tofind the right answers. This approach is not a return to a newtype of Biblicism. Rather we need to emphasize strongly thatBiblical events and meanings must not be looked for behind,beneath, or above the texts,74 but in the texts, because thedivine deeds and words have received form and found ex-pression in them. Biblical-theological interpretation attemptsto study a passage within its own original historical context,

70. Diem, Was heisst schrifigemiiss?, p. 38.71. Eichrodt, TOT I, 26.72. Kraus, Biblische Theologie, p. 381.73. “The Scientific Study of the OT,” in EO’IH, p. 265.74. This is the way in which Hesse, KuD, 4 (1958), 13, seeks to secure

a reality that he feels is not there. I? Mildenberger, Gottes Tat im Wart (Giiter-sloh, 1964), pp. 93ff., argues for the unity of the canon as a rule of under-standing but revives a new kind of pneumatic exegesis.


the Sitz im Leben of the situation into which a word wasspoken or an action took place, and also the life-settings andcontextual relations and connections in the later traditions aswell as the Sitz im Leben in the given context of the book inwhich it is preserved and the larger kerygmatic intention. Inall of this the given context of the two Testaments has abearing on interpretation. 7s Thus the matter of the given con-text in the nearest and more removed relationships withinboth Testaments will always have a decisive bearing for Bib-lical-theological interpretation and for the Biblical theolo-gian’s task of doing OT theology.76

There are several major trends in the discussion of therelationship between the Testaments. The tendency towardMarcionism with its low estimate of the OT is present in full-fledged form in A. Harnack who called for the dismissal ofthe OT, and in Friedrich Delitzsch for whom the OT was anunchristian book.” An attenuated Marcionist strain ismanifested by E. Hirsch for whom the Testaments stand in“antithetical tension” to each other,78 and to a lesser extent

75. Childs, Biblical fieology in Crisis, pp. 99ff., has developed the rele-vance of the “larger canonical context” as the appropriate horizon for Biblicaltheology and applied it to his own methodological approach.

76. Despite von Rad’s emphasis on a charismatic-kerygmatic interpreta-tion, his approach goes along the lines of Heikgeschichte. Von Rad’s emphasison typology (On II, 323ff.) presupposes a wider salvation-historical frame-work and connects two points on this background, as is true of the currentrevival of typological interpretation. On the relationship between typologyand salvation history see Cullmann, SoZvafion in History, pp. 132-135.G. Fohrer’s negative reaction against the notion of salvation history (“Prophe-tie und Geschichte,” 77Z, 89 [1964], 481ff.) comes on the basis that bothsalvation and doom are part of salvation history. To a great extent the historyof salvation is a history of disaster. Yet even here the continuity is preservedin that later the proclamation of salvation is taken up without the preachingof the message of judgment disappearing. Fohrer’s thesis, that the aim of God’saction is the rule of God over the world and nature, is not opposed to salvationhistory but a characteristic part of it.

77. A. Harnack, Marcion: Das Evaugelium vom fiemden Gott (Leipzig,1924; 2nd ed.; Darmstadt, 1960); E Delitzsch, Die grosse Ziuschung, 2 ~01s.(Stuttgart, 1920-21).

78. E. Hirsch, Das ATund die F’redigt des Evangeliums (Xibingen, 1936)pp. 27, 59, 83.


by Bultmann, Baumgartel, and Hesse.7g The opposite extrememakes the OT all-important historically and theologically forthe Christian. It appears in a variety of forms in van Ruler,Miskotte, and Vischer.60 In other words, on one side of thespectrum are those who stress diversity between the Testa-ments to such a degree that there is total disunity andcomplete discontinuity between OT and NT, while on theother side are those who emphasize unity without any roomfor diversity whatsoever. There is, however, a degree of diver-sity between the Testaments which must not be denied. Thetruth of the matter seems to be that there is unity in diversity.61

Among most recent discussions divergent emphases con-tinue to appear on the question of the relationship between

79. The following studies criticize this position from rather differentperspectives: U. Mauser, Gottesbild und Menschwerdung. Eine Untersuchungzur Einheit des Alten und Neuen Testaments (Tiibingen, 1971); G. Siegwalt,La Loi, chemin du Salut. hude SW la signification de la loi de I’AT (Neuchatel,1971); W. Zimmerli, The OTand the World (Atlanta, 1976); J. D. Smart, fieStmnge Silence of the Bible in the Church (London, 1970); J. Bright, fieAuthority ofthe OT (Nashville, 1967) pp. 58-79.

80. K. H. Miskotte, When the GodsAre Silent (London, 1967); W. Vischer,The Wness of the OT to Christ (London, 1949).

81. In addition to the studies by Amsler, Grelot, Smart, Westermann,Murphy, Schwarzwaller, L&fink, Preuss, Kraus, Mauser, Siegwalt, Zimmerli,and Bright mentioned in footnotes 2 and 79 of this chapter, the following recentitems are of special significance: A. J. B. Higgins, The Christiau Signijkance ofthe OT (London, 1949); P Auvray et al., L’AT et les chr&iens (F’eris, 1951); E V.Filson, “The Unity of the OT and the NT A Bibliographical Survey,” Interp, 5(1951), 134-152; H. H. Rowley, ‘IIre Unity of the Bible (London, 1953); E. O’Do-herty, “The Unity of the Bible,” The Bible Today, 1 (1962), 53-57; D. E. Nineham,ed., 7Xe Church’s Use ofthe Bible (London, 1963); H. Seebass, “Der Beitrag desAT zum Entwurf einer biblischen Theologie,” INID, 8 (1965), 20-49; H. Cazelles,“The Unity of the Bible and the People of God,” Scripture, 18 (1966) l-10; E N.Jasper, “The Relation of the OT to the New,” ExpTim, 78 (1967/68), 228-232,267-270; E Lang, “Cbristuszeugnis und Biblische Theologie,” Evl; 29 (1969),523-534; A. H. van Zyl, “The Relation between OT and NT,” Hermeneutica(1970), 9-22; M. Kuske, DasATalsBuch vom Ctistus (Gijttingen, 1971); S. Siedl,“Das Alte und das NT. Ihre Verschiedenheit und Einheit,” 7fibinger PmkischeQuartakchriift, 119 (1971) 314-324; J. Wenham, Christ and the Bible (Chicago,1972); E E Bruce, The NT Development of OT Themes (Grand Rapids, 1973);H. Gese, Vom Sinai zum Sian. Ahtest. Beitmge zur biblischen 7heoJogie (Munich,1974), pp. 11-30; Harrington, 7Ire Ihth ofBiblical lneologv (Dublin, 1974), pp.260-336.


the Testaments. B. S. Childs emphasizes the “canonical con-text” as decisive for OT theology and suggests that “the theo-logical issue at stake is whether there is such a thing as acanonical context, which has been the claim of the church.”He points out that the “historical-critical approach” to theBible has fallen into its “own type of dogmatism in layingexclusive claim to the correct interpretation of the Bible.“82 Itis certain that the question of the proper context is the rootproblem of Biblical interpretation. H.-J. Kraus elaborates that“in the relation of texts and themes the question of context isdecisive.“83 He argues that the Biblical context has a decisivebearing on the meaning of a given theme or subject.84

OT theologians have had sharply divergent views on this.The self-assessment of J. L. McKenzie is that “I wrote it [the-ology of the OT] as if the New Testament did not exist.“85 Hisjustification for this procedure is the fact that the books of theOT were written when the NT did not yet exist. On the basis ofthis criterion one would expect that for the sake of consistencythe respective OT books would be questioned for their theolo-gies independent of OT books written later. This is, however,not the procedure chosen by McKenzie. There seems to be amethodological inconsistency here, especially when out ofChristian faith judgments are made on OT writers!

For Fohrer “understanding the OT does not require faith.“86The interpreter does not enter from within but from without.The NT has no bearing on the understanding of the OT.87 Thisdoes not mean, however, that the interpreter enters from aparticular philosophical system but by means of the histori-cal-critical method. The OT is to be investigated and ex-plained in terms identical to that of any other literature.88 Is

82. B. S. Childs, “The OT as Scripture of the Church,” C’ZX4, 43 (1972)713. See also his Biblical Theology in Crisis, pp. 99-107.

83. Kraus, Biblische Theologie, 381.p.84. Pp. 367-371.85. McKenzie, A Theology of the 07: p. 319.86. Fohrer, Theologische Grundstrukturen des AT p. 31.87. p. 29.88. I? 31.


it here that Childs’ cry of the historical-critical methods “owntype of dogmatism in laying exclusive claim to the correctinterpretation of the Bible” applies? Nevertheless Fohrer ex-plicates the relationship between the Testaments with theprinciple of “beginning [OT] and continuation [NT].“89 Con-trary to the positions of Eichrodt, Westermann, Childs, Kraus,and others, Fohrer does not allow any current of life flowingfrom the NT to the OT. There is no reciprocal relationshipbetween the Testaments; there is only a one-way road fromthe OT to the NT in terms of “beginning and continuation.”The decidedly positive contribution of this position is itsdenial of considering the relationship in terms of oppositessuch as shadow and reality, law and gospel, letter and spirit,darkness and light. However, the principle of “beginning andcontinuation” can only function on the basis of the “propheticattitude of existence” which “continues into and permeatesthe NT.“90 What is at work here is a reductionism of the OTfor which the “prophetic attitude of existence” is raised to asupreme principle of OT faith. Westermann rightly points outthat such a reductionism does injustice to the multiplex na-ture of OT faith and therefore leads to a one-sided principleby which the Testaments are related to each other.91

The impressive OT theology of Zimmerli contains a strangesilence regarding the matter of the relationship between theTestaments. In earlier publication he has been a strong sup-porter of the “promise and fulfillment” scheme.s2 Von Radexplicates that the NT fulfillment far surpasses the OT prom-ise, and among those who strongly support the category ofpromise and fulfillment as explicating the interrelatedness ofthe Testaments are R. E. Murphy, C. Westermann, H. H. Row-ley, J. D. Smart, and W. J. Harrington.93

89. Pp. 274-276.90. F? 274.91. Westermann, Evl: 34 (1974), 102.92. EOlU, pp. 89-122. In his OTTheologyin Outline, pp. 27-32, he deals

with the promise theme but restricts his discussion to the OT.93. R. E. Murphy, “The Relationship between the Testaments,” CBQ, 26

(1964), 349-359; Westermann, EOTH, pp. 17-39; J. D. Smart, TheInterpretation


Two great turning-points in the development of Biblicaltheology centered on the freeing of Biblical theology from thefetters of dogmatics (systematic theology) in the time of Gablerand the separation of OT theology from the fetters of thehistory-of-religions approach during the beginning of this cen-tury.94 One of the great turning-points in today’s interest inOT theology is the reflection on the interrelationship betweenthe Testaments. Fruitful beginnings may be seen in variousattempts that point in forceful ways to the fact that the Testa-ments witness to multiple interrelationships. W. Eichrodt haspointed out that there is a reciprocal relationship between theTestaments, namely “in addition to this historical movementfrom the Old Testament to the New there is a current of lifeflowing in reverse direction from the New Testament to theOld. This reverse relationship also elucidates the full signifi-cance of the realm of OT thought.” Then follows the strikingclaim that “only where this two-fold relationship between theOld and New Testaments is understood do we find a correctdefinition of the problem of OT theology and of the methodby which it is possible to solve it.“95 G. von Rad’s emphasison the larger Biblical context of the OTs6 is seconded by H. W.Wolff,97 H.-J. Kraus, 98 B. S. Childs,aa and others who strivetoward a Biblical theology.100

of Scripture (London, 1961), pp. 82-84; H. H. Rowley, I7te Unity of the Bible(London, 1953), pp. 9-121; Harrington, 77re.Ihth of Biblical Theology, pp.334-336, 346.

94. See especially C. Steuernagel, “Alttestamentliche Theologie und alt-testamentlicheReligionsgeschichte,”Festsc~r$fiirK. Marti (BZAW, 41; 1925),p. 269.

95. Eichrodt, TOT, I, 26.96. Von Rad, OTT, II, 320-335.97. Wolff, .EO7H, p. 181: “In the New Testament is found the context of

the Old, which, as its historical goal, reveals the total meaning of the OldTestament.”

98. Kraus, Biblische Theologie, pp. 33-36, 279-281, 344-347, 380-387.99. Above, note 82.100. In both Protestant and Catholic scholarship there is a marked

increase of voices asking for a Biblical theology: E V. Filson, “Biblische Theo-logie in Amerika,” HZ, 75 (1950), 71-80; M. Burrows, An Outline of BiblicalTheology (Philadelphia, 1946); G. Vos, Biblical fieology (Grand Rapids, 1948);


The complex nature of the interrelationship between theTestaments requires a multiplex approach. No single category,concept, or scheme can be expected to exhaust the varietiesof interrelationships. 101 Among the patterns of historical andtheological relationships between the Testaments are the fol-lowing: (1) A common mark of both Testaments is the con-tinuous history of Gods people and the picture of Gods deal-ings with mankind. 102 (2) New emphasis has been put uponthe connection between the Testaments on the basis of Scrip-tural quotations.103 (3) Among the interrelationships betweenthe Testaments appears the common use of theological keyterms.*04 “Almost every key theological word of the New Testa-ment is derived from some Hebrew word that had a longhistory of use and development in the Old Testament.“105 Asamong the other connecting links, unity does not mean uni-formity, even when one speaks of “Greek words and theirHebrew meanings.“106 (4) The interrelationship between the

C. Spicq, “L’avenement de la Theologie Biblique,” Revue biblique, 35 (1951).561-574; E M. Braun, “La Theologie Biblique,” Revue Thomiste, 61 (1953),221-253; R. de Vaux, ‘X pmpos de la Theologie Biblique,” ZAB! 68 (1956),225-227; 0. I? Robertson, “The Outlook for Biblical Theology,” in Toward aTheology for the Future, ed. D. P. Wells and C. H. Pinnock (Carol Stream, IL,1971), pp. 65-91; Harrington, The Ihth of Biblical Theology, pp. 260-335,371-377.

101. In this respect we agree with W. H. Schmidt, “ ‘Theologie des ATvor und nach Gerhard von Rad,” in Verkiindigung und Forsclmng (Beiheft zurEvT, 17; Munich, 1972), p. 24.

102. E V. Filson, “The Unity Between the Testaments,” The Interpreter’sOne-Volume Commentary on the Bible (Nashville, 1971), p. 992.

103. Childs, Biblical Theology in Crisis, pp. 114-118; P A. Verhoef, “TheRelationship Between the Old and New Testaments,” in New Perspectives onthe OT, ed. J. B. Payne (Waco, Texas, 1970), p. 282; R. H. Gundry, The Use ofthe OT in St. Matthew’s Gospel (Leiden, 1967); R. T. fiance, Jesus and the OT(London, 1971).

104. So H. Haag in Mysterium Salutis. Grundriss heilsgeschiclttlicherDogmatik, ed. J. Feiner and M. Lohr (1965), I, 440-457.

105. J. L. McKenzie, ‘Xspects of OT Thought,” 7Ite Jerome Biblical Com-mentary (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1968), p. 767.

106. D. Hill, Greek Words and HebrewMeanings: Studiesin the Semanticsof Soteriological Terms (London, 1967); cf. J. Barr, The Semantics of BiblicalLanguage (Oxford, 1961).


Testaments comes also to expression through the essentialunity of major themes. “Each of the major themes of the Old[Testament] has its correspondent in the New, and is in someway resumed and answered there.“*07 Such themes as ruler-ship of God, people of God, exodus experience, election andcovenant, judgment and salvation, bondage and redemption,life and death, creation and new creation, etc., present them-selves for immediate consideration. (5) A guarded and cir-cumspect use of typology is indispensable for an adequatemethodology that attempts to come to grips with the historicalcontext of the OT and its relationship to the NT.108 Typologymust be sharply separated from allegory,lss because it is es-sentially a historical and theological category between OT andNT events. Allegory has little concern with the historicalcharacter of the OT. (6) The category of promise/predictionand fulfillment elucidates another aspect of the interrelated-ness of the Testaments.ll” This interrelationship is fundamen-tal and decisive not only for inner OT unity and the under-standing of the relationship of the OT to Jesus Christ but alsofor the interrelationship between the Testaments.ll* As im-portant as this category is, it is not exhaustive of the totalrelationship of OT to NT. (7) Last but not least is the concept

107. J. Bright, 7&e Authority of the OT (Nashville, 1967), p. 211. Cf. E EBruce, The NT Development of OT Themes (Grand Rapids, 1973).

108. L. Goppelt, ?Lpos: ‘IIte Typological Interpretation of the OT in theNew (Grand Rapids, 1982); idem, “Qpos,” lDm VIII (1972) 246-259; fiance,Jesus and the OT, pp. 38-80; G. W. H. Lampe and K. J. Woollcombe, Essayson Tjpologv (SBT, l/22; London, 1957); Wolff, EOTH, pp. 181-190; G. vonRad, “Typological Interpretation of the OT,” Intezp, 15 (1961), 174-192;John H. Stek, “Biblical ‘Qpology Yesterday and Today,” Calvin TheologicalJournal, 5 (1970), 133-162.

169. This basic interpretation has been attacked by Barr, Old and Newin Interpretation, pp. 103-111, but rightly defended by Eichrodt, EOTH, pp.227f.; Lampe, Essays on lj.pology, pp. 30-35; and France, Jesus and the OT,pp. 4Of.

110. This is supported in recent years by H. H. Rowley; C. H. Dodd;G. von Rad; H. W. Wolff, “The OT in Controversy; Interpretive Principles andIllustration,” lnterp, 12 (1958), 281-291; idem, EOTH, pp. 160-199; Zimmerli,EOTH, pp. 89-122; Westermann, The OT and Jesus Christ; and others.

111. Westermann, The OT and Jesus Christ, p. 78.


of salvation history that links the two Testaments together.l12Secular history and salvation history are not to be conceivedas two separate realities. Particular historical events have adeeper significance, perceived through divine revelation: suchevents are divine acts in human history. The course of salva-tion history was inaugurated for man after the fall and movedfrom Adam and all mankind through Abraham to Christ, andfrom him it moves to the goal of history, the final futureconsummation in glory.l13

If properly conceived, these multiple interrelationships be-tween the Testaments may be considered to elucidate theunity of the Testaments without forcing a uniformity upon thediverse Biblical witnesses. There is unity in diversity.

112. See here especially 0. Cullmann, Christ and Time (2nd ed.; London,1962); idem, Salvation in History (London, 1967); E Grelot, Sens Chretien de1’AT (Tournai, 1962), Ch. 5.

113. See the emphasis by Vriezen, An Outline of OT Theology p. 123;Rowley, The Unity of the Bible, pp. 109f.; Zimmerli, EOTH, p. 114; Verhoef,New Perspectives on the OT p. 293.

VI. Basic Proposalsfor Doing 0’1: Theology

Our attempt to focus on unresolved crucial problems whichare at the center of the current crisis in OT theology hasrevealed that there are basic inadequacies in the current meth-odologies and approaches. The inevitable question that hasarisen is, Where do we go from here? Our strictures withregard to the paths trodden by Biblical theologians have in-dicated that a basically new approach must be worked out. Aproductive way to proceed from here on appears to have torest upon the following basic proposals for doing OT theology.

(1) Biblical theology must be understood to be a historical-theological discipline. This is to say that the Biblical theolo-gian engaged in doing either Old or New Testament theologymust claim as his task both to discover and describe what thetext meant and also to explicate what it means for today. TheBiblical theologian attempts to “get back there,“’ i.e., he wantsto do away with the temporal gap by bridging the time spanbetween his day and that of the Biblical witnesses, by meansof the historical study of the Biblical documents. The natureof the Biblical documents, however, inasmuch as they arethemselves witnesses of the eternal purpose of God for Israeland for the world as manifested through divine acts and words

1. This phrase comes from G. E. Wright, “The Theological Study of theBible,” The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible (Nashville,1971), p. 983.

1 9 4

BASIC PROPOSALS FOR DOING OT THEOLOGY 1 9 5

of judgment and salvation in history, requires a movementfrom the level of the historical investigation of the Bible tothe theological one. The Biblical witnesses are themselves notonly historical witnesses in the sense that they originated atparticular times and particular places; they are, at the sametime theological witnesses in the sense that they testify as theword of God to the divine reality and activity as it impingeson the historicality of man. Thus the task of the Biblicaltheologian is to interpret the Scriptures meaningfully, withthe careful use of the tools of historical and philological re-search, attempting to understand and describe in “getting backthere” what the Biblical testimony meant; and to explicate themeaning of the Biblical testimony for modern man in his ownparticular historical situation.

The Biblical theologian neither takes the place of nor com-petes with the systematic theologian or dogmatician. The lat-ter has and always will have to fulfill his own task in that heendeavors to use current philosophies as the basis for hisprimary categories or themes. For the systematic theologian itis indeed appropriate to operate with philosophical categories,because his foundations are on a base different from that ofthe Biblical theologian. The Biblical theologian draws hiscategories, themes, motifs, and concepts from the Biblical textitself. The Biblical theologian stands in danger of surrepti-tiously introducing contemporary philosophy into his disci-pline.2 But he must carefully guard himself against this temp-tation. Therefore, it must be emphasized that the Biblical andsystematic theologians do not compete with each other. Theirfunction is complementary. Both need to work side by side,profiting from each other. The Biblical theologian is to presentthe Biblical categories, themes, motifs, and concepts, which

2. A. Dulles (ne Bible in Modern Scholarship, p. 215) states not incor-rectly that “any number of supposedly biblical theologies in our day are soheavily infected with contemporary personalist, existential, or historicalthinking as to render their biblical basis highly suspect.” In this respect KarlBarth and Rudolf Bultmann have often been accused of finding too many oftheir own favorite philosophical ideas in the Scripture.


in contrast to the “clear and distinct ideas” of the systematictheologian are often less clear and distinct. All too often theBiblical categories are more suggestive and dynamic ones forexpressing the rich revelation of the deep mystery of God. Asa result Biblical theology is able to say something to modernman that systematic theology cannot say, and vice versa.

(2) If Biblical theology is understood to be a historical-theological discipline, it follows that its proper method mustbe both historical and theological from the starting-point. Atheology of the OT presupposes exegesis based upon soundprinciples and procedures. Exegesis, in turn, is in need of OTtheology. Without OT theology the work of exegetical inter-pretation may easily become endangered by isolating in-dividual texts from the whole. For example, if one is on thebasis of OT theology acquainted with the motif of the remnantin the period prior to and contemporary with the writingprophets, one will not overlook that Amos’ use of the remnantmotif is to some extent one-sided among the pre-exilic proph-ets. And if one knows Amos’ remnant theology, one will notlikely misunderstand the remnant theology as a whole merelyas an expression of the positive aspect of a holy remnant savedfrom eschatological judgment or as an expression of an insig-nificant and meaningless remainder of God’s chosen people.zaOn the other hand, a careful, clear-sighted, and sound exegesiswill always be able to check critically OT theology.

At this point we must pause to note H.-J. Kraus’ reminderthat “one of the most difficult questions confronting Biblicaltheology today is that of the starting-point, the meaning andfunction of historical-critical research.“3 Von Rad has sensed

2a. See the writer’s monograph, The Remnant. The History and Theologyof the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah (2nd ed.; Andrews UniversityMonographs, V; Berrien Springs, MI, 1975), pp. 173-371.

3. Kraus, Biblische Theologie, p. 363; cf. p. 377. On this point Childs(Biblical Theology in Crisis, pp. 141f.) writes: “The historico-critical methodis an inadequate method for studying the Bible as the Scriptures of the churchbecause it does not work from the needed context. . . When seen from thecontext of the canon both the question of what the text meant and what it


more keenly than his predecessors who produced OT theolo-gies in this century that the Biblical theologian cannot moveon the pathway of a “critically assured minimum,” if he ac-tually attempts to grasp “the layers of depth of historicalexperience, which historical-critical research is unable tofathom.“4 The reason for the inability of the historical-criticalmethod to grasp all layers of depth of historical experience,i.e., the imrer unity of happening and meaning based uponthe inbreaking of transcendence into history as the final realityto which the Biblical text testifies, rests upon its limitation tostudy history on the basis of its own presuppositions.

The historical-critical method, which came out of theEnlightenment,5 views history as a closed continuum, an un-broken series of causes and effects in which there is no roomfor transcendence.6 “The historian cannot presuppose super-natural intervention in the causal nexus as the basis for hiswork.“’

means are inseparably linked and both belong to the task of interpretation ofthe Bible as Scripture. To the extent that the use of the critical method setsup an iron curtain between the past and the present, it is an inadequatemethod for studying the Bible as the church’s Scripture.” For the inadequacyof the historical-critical method with regard to the new quest of the historicalJesus, see G. E. Ladd, “The Search for Perspective,” Interp, 26 (1971) 41-62.

4. TAT I, 120; cf. Orr: I, 108.5. This must be clearly seen, if one does not want to confuse the issues.

Ebeling, Word and Faith, p. 42: “The critical historical method first srose outof the intellectual revolution of modern times.” On this whole point seeU. Wilckens, “Uber die Bedeutung historischer Kritik in der modernenBibelexegese,” in Was heisst Auslegung der Heiligen Schrift? (Regensburg,1966), pp. 85-133. A critique of the adequacy of the historical-criticalmethodfor theological research is provided by E. Reisner, “Hermeneutik uad his-torische Vernunft,” Zi’X, 49 (1952), 223-238, and a defense by E. Wsemann,“Vom theologischen Recht historisch-kritischer Exegese,” Z77(?, 64 (1967),259-281; idem, Der Ruf der fieiheit (3rd ed.; Munich, 1968).

6. OTT II, 418: “For Israel, history consisted only of Jahweh’s self-revelation by word and action. And on this point conflict with the modernview of history was sooner or later inevitable, for the latter finds it perfectlypossible to construct a picture of history without God. It finds it very hardto assume that there is divine action in history. God has no natural place inits schema.”

7. R. W. Funk, “The Hermeneutical Problem and Historical Criticism,”


Accordingly, historical events must be capable of beingexplained by antecedent historical causes and understood interms of analogy to other historical experiences. The methodwhich prides itself of its scientific nature and objectivity turnsout to be in the grip of its own dogmatic presuppositions andphilosophical premises about the nature of history. C. E.Braaten sees the problem as follows: “The historian oftenbegins by claiming that he conducts his research purely ob-jectively, without presuppositions, and ends by surrepti-tiously introducing a set of presuppositions whose roots liedeeply embedded in an anti-Christian Wdtanschauung.“~ ABiblical theology which rests upon a view of history that isbased on an unbroken continuum of causes and effects cannotdo justice to the Biblical view of history and revelation norto the Scripture’s claim to truth.9 Von Rad has come to recog-nize that “a consistently applied historico-critical methodcould [not] really do justice to the Old Testament scripture’sclaim to truth.“10 What needs to be emphatically stressed isthat there is a transcendent or divine dimension in Biblicalhistory which the historical-critical method is unable to dealwith. “If all historical events must by definition be explainedby sufficient historical causes, then there is no room for theacts of God in history, for God is not a historical character.“l*If one’s view of history is such that one cannot acknowledgea divine intervention in history through deed and word, thenone is unable to deal adequately and properly with the testi-mony of Scripture. We are, therefore, led to conclude that thecrisis respecting history in Biblical theology is not so much aresult of the scientific study of the evidences, but stems from

in The New Hermeneutic, ed. J. M. Robinson and J. B. Cobb, Jr. (New York,1964) p. 185.

8. C. E. Braaten, “Revelation, History, and Faith in Martin K;ihler,” inM. Kahler, The So-called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ(Philadelphia, 1964), p. 22.

9. Wallace, ZZ, 19 (1963), 90; cf. J. Barr, “Revelation through History inthe OT and in Modern Theology,” Interp, 17 (1963) 2Olf.

10. OTT, II, 417.11. Ladd, Intezp, 26 (1971) 50.


the historical-critical method’s inadequacy to deal with therole of transcendence in history due to its philosophical pre-suppositions about the nature of history.12 If the reality of theBiblical text testifies to a supra-historical dimension whichtranscends the self-imposed limitations of the historical-critical method, then one must employ a method that canaccount for this dimension and can probe into all the layersof depth of historical experience and deal adequately andproperly with the Scripture’s claim to truth.ls

We have stated that the proper method for Biblical theologyis to be both historical and theological from the beginning.Too often it is assumed that exegesis has the historical-criticalfunction to work out the meaning of single texts, and Biblicaltheology the task to join these single aspects into a theologicalwhole, namely a sequential procedure. H.-J. Kraus has rightlycalled for a “Biblical-theological process of interpretation” inwhich exegesis is from its starting-point Biblical-theologicalin orientation.14 If we add to this aspect that a proper andadequate method of research dealing with the Biblical textneeds to take into account the reality of God and his inbreak-ing into history,15 because the Biblical text testifies to thetranscendent dimension in historical reality,16 then we have

12. Von Rad, TAT, II, 9: “The historical method opens up for us only oneaspect in the many-layered phenomenon of history, and at that one whichcannot say anything about the relationship between history and God.”

13. Von Rad, TAT, I, 120; O’IT, I, 108. Osswald, W%senschaftbclre Zeit-schrift der Universitiit Jena, 14 (1965), 711: “With the aid of critical scienceone can certainly make no statement about God, because there is no paththat leads from the objectifying science of history to a real theological ex-pression. The rational process of knowing history remains limited to thespatial-temporal dimension. . .I’

14. Biblische Theologie, p. 377.15. This point is also made by Floyd V. Filson, “How I Interpret the

Bible,” Interp, 4 (1956), 186: “1 work with the conviction that the only reallyobjective method of study takes the reality of God and his working intoaccount and that any other point of view is loaded with presuppositionswhich actually, even if subtly, contain an implicit denial of the full Christianfaith.”

16. One presupposition of the historical-critical method is the consistentapplication of the principle of analogy. E. Troeltsch writes, “The means by


a basis upon which historical and theological interpretationcan go hand in hand from the start without needing to beartificially separated into sequential processes.17 On this basisone is able to “get back there” into the world of the Biblicalwriter by bridging the temporal and cultural gap, and canattempt to understand historically and theologically what thetext meant. It is then possible to express more adequately andcomprehensively what the text means for man in the modernworld and historical situation.

This methodological procedure does not seek to skip his-tory in favor of theology. The Biblical theologian working withthe method that is both historical and theological recognizesfully the relativity of human objectivity.18 Accordingly he isaware that he must never let his faith cause him to modernizehis materials on the basis of the tradition and community offaith in which he stands. He must ask questions of the Biblicaltext on its own terms; he makes room that his tradition andthe content of his faith may be challenged, guided, enlivened,and enriched by his finds. He recognizes also that a purelyphilological, linguistic, and historical approach is neverenough to disclose the full and complete meaning of a his-torical text. One can apply all the exegetical instruments avail-

which criticism [with the historical-critical method] is at all possible is theapplication of analogy. . . But the omnipotence of analogy implies that allhistorical events are identical in principle” (quoted by von Rad, 07T, I, 107).Von Rad states in TAT II, 9, that also the course of history as built up by thehistorical-critical method “is interpreted history on the basis of historical-philosophical presuppositions, which do not allow any possible recognitionof God’s action in history, because only man is notoriously considered to bethe creator of history.” Mildenberger, Gottes Tat im Wart, p. 31 n. 37, agreeswith von Rad and adds that historical criticism “presupposes a closed relationof reality which cannot grant ‘supernatural’ causes.”

17. On this point von Rad, TAT, II, 12, has made the following observa-tion: “The theological interpretation of OT texts does not actually begin whenthe exegete, trained in literary criticism and history (either this or that!), hasdone his job, as if we had two exegetical processes, first a historical-criticalone and then a ‘theological one.’ A theological interpretation that seeks tograsp a statement about God in the text is active from the very beginning ofthe process of understanding.”

18. So also Stendahl, IDB, I, 422.

BASIC PROPOSALS FOR DOING OT THEOLOGY 201

able from historical, linguistic, and philological research andnever reach the heart of the matter unless one yields to thebasic experience out of which the Biblical writers speak,namely faith. Without so yielding, one will never come to arecognition of the full reality that finds expression in theBiblical testimony. We do not wish to turn faith into a method,nor do we intend to disregard the demand of the Biblicalbooks, as documents from the past, to translate them as ob-jectively as possible by careful employment of the respectiveand proper methods of interpretation. But we mean thatthe interpretation of Scripture is to become part of our ownreal experience, as should all interpretation.lg The historical-theological interpretation is to be at the service of faith, if itis to fathom all layers of depth of historical experience andto penetrate into the full meaning of the text and the realityexpressed in it. We must, therefore, affirm that when inter-pretation seeks to grasp statements and testimonies witness-ing to God’s self-disclosure as the Lord of time and event, whohad chosen to reveal himself in actual datable happenings ofhuman history through acts and words of judgment and sal-vation, then the process of understanding such statements andtestimonies must be from the start both historical and theo-logical in nature in order to comprehend fully the completereality that has come to expression.

(3) The Biblical theologian engaged in OT theology has hissubject indicated beforehand inasmuch as his endeavor is atheology of the Old Testament. It is founded exclusively onmaterials taken from the OT. The OT comes to him throughthe Christian church as part of the inspired Scriptures. Intro-duction to the OT seeks to throw light on the pre-literary andliterary stages and forms of the OT books by tracing their

19. To confine oneself to philology, linguistics, and history when study-ing the Gilgamesh Epic or the Assyrian annals, without ever giving oneselfover to the thought of the authors of these documents, without ever tryingto share in the experiences of the authors that came to expression in thesedocuments, would mean to miss forever the concept of reality which thesemen discovered and which made up their very life and thought.


history of transmission and formation as well as the text-formsand the canonization of the OT. The history of Israel is studiedin the context of the history of antiquity with special emphasison the ancient Near East, where archeology has been invalu-able in providing the historical, cultural, and social setting forthe Bible. Exegesis has the task to disclose the full meaningof the individual texts.

Old Testament theology questions the various books orblocks of writings of the OT as to their theology.20 For the OTis composed of writings whose origin, content, forms, inten-tions, and meaning are very diverse. The nature of thesematters makes it imperative to look at the material at hand inlight of the context which is primary to us, namely the formin which we meet it first, as a verbal structure of an integralpart of a literary whole. 21 Viewed in this way an OT theologywill neither become a “history of religion,“22 “history of the

26. This has been stressed for NT theology especially by Heinrich Schlier(“The Meaning and Function of a Theology of the NT,” Dogmatic vs. BiblicalTheology, ed. H. Vorgrimler [Baltimore, 19641, pp. 88-90); for OT theology byKraus (Bibliscbe 77teologie, p. 364), by D. J. McCarthy (“The Theology ofLeadership in Joshua l-9,” Bib, 52 [1971], 166), and with his own emphasisby Childs (Biblical Theology in Crisis, pp. 99-107).

21. Contemporary (non-Biblical) literary critics place special emphasisupon the “new criticism,” which the Germans call Werkintezpmtation. Cf.W. Kayser, Das spracblicbe Kunstwerk (16th ed.; Bern-Munich, 1964); EmilStaiger, Die Kunst der Interpretation (4th ed.; Zurich, 1963); Horst Enders, ed.,Die We&interpretation (Darmstadt, 1967). The primary concern according tothe practitioners of the “new criticism” is to occupy oneself with the studyof a finished piece of literature. The “new criticism” insists on the formalintegrity of the literary piece as a work of art, the Kunstwerk. Such a workmust be appreciated in its totality; to look behind it in an attempt at discover-ing its history of origin is irrelevant. The emphasis is on the finished literaryproduct qua work of art. An increasing number of OT scholars have takenup the emphasis of the “new criticism.” Among them are: Z. Adar, The BiblicalNarrative (Jerusalem, 1959); S. Talmon, “ ‘Wisdom’ in the Book of Esther,” fl13 (1963), 419-455; M. Weiss, “Wege der neueren Dichtungswissenschaft inihrer Anwendung auf die Psalmenforschung,” Bib, 42 (1961), 225-302; idem,“Einiges iiber die Bauformen des Erzahlens in der Bibel,” v?; 13 (1963),455-475; idem, “Weiteres iiber die Bauformen des E&&lens in der Bibel,”Bib, 46 (1965), 181-206; idem, 711e Bible from W&hin: 7be Method of TotalInterpretation (Jerusalem, 1984).

22. One should refrain from designating a book like H. Ringgren’s


transmission of tradition,” or “history of revelation,“23 nor willit turn into a “theology of redaction criticism” or somethingof that sort. A theology of the OT is first of all a summaryinterpretation and explanation of the OT writings or blocksof writings. This does not imply that there is no value incapturing the theology of particular traditions; it simply viewsthis to be part of another endeavor. The procedure of expli-cating the theology of the OT books or blocks of writings inthe final form24 as verbal structures of literary wholes has thedistinct advantage of recognizing the similarities and differ-ences between the various books or blocks of writings. Thismeans, for example, that the theologies of the individual pro-phetic writings will be able to stand independently next toeach other. Each voice can be heard in its testimony to theactivity of God and the divine self-disclosure. Another advan-tage of this approach, one that is crucial for the whole enter-prise of OT theology, is that no systematic scheme, pattern ofthought, or extrapolated abstraction is superimposed upon theBiblical materials. Since no single theme, scheme, or motif issufficiently comprehensive to include within it all varietiesof OT viewpoints, one must refrain from using a particularconcept, formula, basic idea, etc., as the center of the OT

Israelite Religion (Philadelphia, 1966) as an OT theology. Ringgren himselfstates that “the reader will not find in this book a theology of the OldTestament but a history of Israelite religion. . . Theologians will also misspoints of view based on Heilsgescbicbte; these points of view have their place,but only within a theological presentation” (p. v).

23. Kraus, Bibliscbe Tbeologie, p. 365: “ ‘Biblical theology’ should bebiblical theology in that it accepts the canon in the given textual connectionsas the historical truth which is in need of explanation, whose final form is inneed of being presented by interpretation and summary. This should be theactual task of Biblical theology. Every attempt at a different procedure wouldnot be Biblical theology, but ‘history of revelation,’ ‘history of religion,’ oreven ‘history of tradition.’ ”

24. An emphasis on the “final form” even for the exegetical task issupported by M. Noth, Exodus: A Commentary (Philadelphia, 1962) p. 18;Landes, Union Seminary Quarterly Review, 26 (1971), 273ff. Barr, The Biblein the Modern World, pp. 163ff., points out quite correctly that the “final formof the text has the first importance, and this is likely to be still more widelyaccepted with the influence both of ‘redaction criticism’ and structuralism.”


whereby a systematization of the manifold and variegated OTtestimonies is achieved. On the other hand, we must affirmthat God is the center of the OT as its central subject. Bysaying that God is the center of the OT we have stated thatthe OT Scripture has a central content without falling intothe trap of organizing the event-centered character and man-ner of God’s self-disclosing revelation into a system. It isrefraining to systematize that which cannot be systematizedwithout losing its essential nature.

(4) The presentation of the theologies of the OT books, orgroups of writings, will preferably not follow the order of thebooks in the canonical sequence, for this order, whether inthe Hebrew canon or the LXX, etc., had apparently other thantheological causes. Though admittedly difficult to fix, the dateof origin of the books, groups of writings, or blocks of materialwithin these writings may provide a guide for establishing theorder of presentation of the various theologies.

(5) An OT theology not only seeks to know the theology ofthe various books, or groups of writings: it also attempts todraw together and present the major themes of the OT. To liveup to its name, OT theology must allow its themes, motifs,and concepts to be formed for it by the OT itself. The rangeof OT themes, motifs, and concepts will always impose itselfon the theologian insofar as they silence his own, once thetheological perspectives of the OT are really grasped. On prin-ciple, a theology of the OT must tend toward themes, motifs,and concepts and must be presented with all the variety andall the limitations imposed on them by the OT itself.

For example, the election themes as reflected in Gods callto Abraham and his promises to him and the fathers of Israel,God’s deliverance of enslaved Israel in the exodus experiencewith Israel’s establishment in the Promised Land, and Godschoice of and promises to David with Zion/Jerusalem as theholy mountain and divine dwelling-place, are in need of beingpresented in an OT theology in their variety of appearancesand usages in the individual books or blocks of material. Thiswould be equally true with regard to so central a concept asthe Mosaic covenant. The utterly gracious action of the Giver


of the covenant drew from the recipients a response, andcreated the special and unique relationship between them andtheir God. The covenant concept furnishes major elements forworship and cult as well as for the proclamation of the proph-ets and the theology of the historical books. Inherent in theseand other OT concepts, motifs, and themes is a basic futureexpectation, namely the outstanding blessing for all nations,the new Exodus, the second David, the new Jerusalem, thenew covenant, which reveals that Israelite faith needs to beviewed as intensely directed toward the future. Special motifsin the wisdom theology stress mans life and responsibility inthe here and now. It is beyond our purpose to list the varietyof major concepts, themes, and motifs.

The presentation of these longitudinal perspectives of theOT testimonies can be achieved only on the basis of a multi-track treatment. The richness of the OT testimonies can begrasped by such a multiplex approach as is commensuratewith the nature of the OT. This multiplex approach with themultitrack treatment of longitudinal themes frees the Biblicaltheologian from the notion of an artificial and forced unilinearapproach determined by a single structuring concept, whetherit is covenant, communion, kingdom of God, or somethingelse, to which all OT testimonies, thoughts, and concepts aremade to refer or are forced to fit.

(6) As the OT is interrogated for its theology, it answers firstof all by yielding various theologies, namely those of the in-dividual books and groups of writings, and then by yielding thetheologies of the various longitudinal themes. But the name ofour discipline as theology of the OT is not only concerned topresent and explicate the variety of different theologies. Theconcept foreshadowed by the name of the discipline has onetheology in view, namely the theology of the OT.

The final aim of OT theology is to demonstrate whether ornot there is an inner unity that binds together the varioustheologies and longitudinal themes, concepts, and motifs.This is an extremely difficult undertaking which containsmany dangers. If there is behind the experience of those wholeft us the OT Scriptures a unique divine reality, then it would


seem that behind all variegation and diversity of theologicalreflection there is a hidden inner unity which has also drawntogether the OT writings. The ultimate object of a theology isthen to draw the hidden inner unity out of its concealmentas much as possible and to make it transparent.

The task to achieve this objective must not be performedtoo hastily. The constant temptation to find unity in a singlestructuring theme or concept must be avoided. Here misgiv-ings should arise not only because OT theology would bereduced to a cross-sectional or some other development of asingle theme or concept, but the real task would be lost sightof, which is precisely not to overlook or pass by the variegatedand diverse theologies while at the same time to search forand articulate the inner unity which seemingly binds togetherin a concealed way the divergent and manifold OT testimo-nies. One can indeed speak of such a unity in which ulti-mately the divergent theological utterances and testimoniesare intrinsically related to each other from the theologicalviewpoint on the basis of a presupposition that derives fromthe inspiration and canonicity of the OT as Scripture.

A seemingly successful way to come to grips with thequestion of unity is to take the various major longitudinalthemes and concepts and explicate whether and how thevariegated theologies are intrinsically related to each other. Inthis way the underlying bond of the one theology of the OTmay be illuminated. In the quest to find and explicate theinner unity one must refrain from making the theology of onebook or group of books the norm of what is OT theology. Forexample, one must not make a particular theology of historythe norm of OT theology. 25 The often neglected theologies,among them especially those of the wisdom materials of theOT, must be allowed to stand side by side with other theolo-

25. This has been the case even in von Rad’s approach. He has chosena particular theology of history, that of the Deutemnomist, as the main normfor his exposition of OT theology. Thus the wisdom traditions are forced torecede into the background.


gies. They make their own special contributions to OT the-ology on equal basis with those more recognized ones, be-cause they too are expressions of OT realities. The questionof unity implies tension, but tension does not of necessitymean contradiction. It would appear that where conceptualunity seems impossible the creative tension thereby producedwill turn out to be a most fruitful one for OT theology.

(7) The Biblical theologian understands OT theology asbeing more than the “theology of the Hebrew Bible.” The name“theology of the Old Testament” implies the larger context ofthe Bible of which the New Testament is the other part. Anintegral OT theology must demonstrate its basic relationshipto the NT or to NT theology. For the Christian theologian theOT has the character of Scripture on the basis of its relationto the other Testament.

As noted earlier, the multiplex question and complex na-ture of the relationship between the Testaments and its impli-cation for OT theology make it necessary to opt for a multiplexapproach.26 A multiplex approach leaves room for indicatingthe variety of connections between the Testaments and avoidsan explication of the manifold testimonies through a singlestructure or unilinear point of view. The multiplex approachhas the advantage of remaining faithful to both similarity anddissimilarity as well as old and new without in the leastdistorting the original historical witness of the text in its literalsense and its larger kerygmatic intention nor falling short inthe recognition of the larger context to which the OT belongs.Thus both Testaments will finally shed light upon each otherand aid mutually in a more comprehensive understanding oftheir theologies.

* * * * *

On the basis of these proposals outlining a new approach toOT theology, one is in a position to work out a theology of

26. Supra, pp. 139-149.


the OT that may avoid the pitfalls and blind alleys that haveprecipitated the current crisis in OT theology. At the sametime one may be a crucial step closer in bringing about a muchhoped for and talked about Biblical theology of both the Oldand New Testaments.

Selected Bibliography

Note: With the help of my doctoral student Reinaldo Siqueira, I have enlargedthis “selected bibliography” over the one in the previous edition-more thandoubling its entries-by including books and articles on OT theology whicham representative of the discipline in its various shapes from its beginning,with an emphasis on the period since 1950.

Abramowski, Rudolf. “Vom Streit urn das Alte Testament,” 7% 9 (1937),65-93.

Achtemeier, Elizabeth. “The Relevance of the Old Testament for ChristianPreaching.” In A Light Unto My Path: Old Testament Studies in Honor ofJacob M. Myers. Ed. H. Bream, R. Heim, and C. Moore. Philadelphia, 1974.Pp. 3-24.

Ackroyd, Peter. “Recent Biblical Theologies: VII. G. A. I? Knight’s ‘A ChristianTheology of the Old Testament,’ ” ExpTim, 73 (1961-1962), 164-168.

-. Continuity: A Contribution to the Study of the Old Testament Religious‘lindition. Oxford, 1962.

-. “The Vitality of the Word of God in the Old Testament,“ASTI, 1(1962),7-23.

-. Studies in the Religious Rao!ition of the Old Testament. London, 1987.Addinall, Peter. “What is Meant by a Theology of the Old Testament?” Exp’Dm,

97/11 (1986) 332-336.Albertz, R. Weltscbiipfung und Menscbscbopfimg. Calwer Theologische Mono-

graphien, 3. Stuttgart, 1974.Albrektson, Bert& “Framreorientaliska och gammaltestamentliga fiirestll-

lingar om uppenbarelse i historien. N&a preliminare synpunkter,” Tea-loginen aikakauskirja, 71 (1966), 13-34.

-. History and the Gods: An Essay on the Idea of Historical Events asDivine Manifestations in the Ancient Near East and in Israel. ConiectaneaBiblica: Old Testament Series, 1. Lund, 1967.

Albright, William E “Return to Biblical Theology,” Christian Century, 75(1958) 1328-1331.

209

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 2 1 1

-. Biblical Words for Time. SBT, l/33. London, 1962. Rev. ed. 1969.-. “Revelation Through History in the Old Testament and in Modern

Theology,” Interp, 17 (1963), 193205.-. Old and New in Biblical Jntelpretation. New York, 1966.-. Compamtive Philology and the Tex of the Old Testament. London,

1968. Rev. ed. 1987.-. “Le Judaisme postbiblique et la theologie de 1’Ancien Testament,”

Revue de Thbologie et de Philosophie, 3/18 (1968), 209-217.-. “The Old Testament and the New Crisis of Biblical Theology,” Inteqo,

25 (1971), 24-40.-. “Semantics and Biblical Theology-A Contribution to the Discus-

sion.” In Congress Volume: Uppsala, 1971. Supplements to VT, 22. Leiden,1972. Pp. 11-19.

-. 7%e Bible in the Modern World. London, 1973.-. “Trends and Prospects in Biblical Theology,” Journal of 7Iheological

Studies, 25 (1974), 265-282.-. “Revelation in History.” In IDB Supplement. Nashville, 1976. Pp.

746-749.-. “Story and History in Biblical Theology,” JR, 56 (1976), 1-17.-. “Biblical Theology.” In IDB Supplement. Nashville, 1976. Pp. 104-111.-. Fundamentalism. London, 1977. 2nd ed. 1981.-. Does Biblical Study Still Belong to Theology? Oxford, 1978.-. “Childs’ Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture,” JSO?: 16

(1980), 12-23.-. Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism. Philadelphia, i983.-. The Scope and Authority of the Bible. Philadelphia, 1983.-. Beyond Wndamentalism. Philadelphia, 1984.-. “Biblische Theologie.” In Evangelisches Kirchenlexikon, l/2 (1985),

488-494.-. “Mowinckel, the Old Testament and the Question of Natural The-

ology: The Second Mowinckel Lecture-Oslo, 27 November 1987,” St&aTheologica, 42 (1988), 21-38.

-. “The Theological Case against Biblical Theology.” In Canon, Theology,and Old Testament Inteqoretntion: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs.Ed. G. M. Tucker, D. L. Petersen, and R. R. Wilson. Philadelphia, 1988.Pp. 3-19.

-. “Am We Moving Toward an Old Testament Theology, or Away FromIt?” Paper read at the Society of Biblical Literature, Nov. 1989. Abstractprinted in A&m&: American Academy of Religion, Society of BiblicalLitemture, 2989. Ed. J. B. Wiggins and D. J. Lull. Atlanta, 1989. P 20.

Barrois, G. A. Z7ie Brce of Christ in the Old Testament. New York, 1974.Barstad, Hans M. “The Historical-Critical Method and the Problem of Old

Testament Theology: A Few Marginal Remarks,” Svensk Exegetisk hsbok,45 (1980), 7-18.

Barth, C. “Grundprobleme einer Theologie des AT,” Ev7: 23 (1963), 342-362.Barth, M. “Whither Biblical Theology,” Znterp, 25 (1971), 350-354.


Allen, E. L. “On Demythologizing the Old Testament,” JBR, 22 (1954) 236-241.

-. “The Limits of Biblical Theology,” JBR, 25 (1957) 13-18.Alonso-Schiikel, L. “Biblische Theologie des AT,” Stimme derzeit, 172 (1962-

1963) 34-51.-. “Old Testament Theology.” In Sacramentum MunaY: Au Encyclopedia

of Theolom Ed. K. Rahner. London, 1969. IV 286-290.Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narmtive. New York, 1980.-. 7&e Art of Biblical Poetry New York, 1985.Ammon, Christoph I? von. Biblische Theologie. 3 ~01s. 2nd ed. Erlangen,

1801-1802.Anderson, A. A. “Old Testament Theology and Its Methods.” In Promise and

Fulfilment: Essays Presented to Professor S. H. Hook. Ed. E I? Bruce. Edin-burgh, 1963. Pp. 7-19.

Anderson, Bernhard W. Creation Versus Chaos: The Reinterpretation of Mythi-cal Symbolism in the Bible. New York, 1967.

-. “The Crisis of Biblical Theology,” TToday, 28 (1971), 321-332.-. “Mythopoeic and Theological Dimensions of Biblical Creation Faith.”

In Creation in the Old Testament. Ed. Bernhard W. Anderson. IRT, 6.London I Philadelphia, 1984. Pp. l-24.- “Biblical Theology and Sociological Interpretation,” TToday, 42

(1985), 292-306.-. “Response to Matitahu Tsevat ‘Theology of the Old Testament-A

Jewish View,’ ” HBT 8/2 (1986), 55.Anderson, Bernhard W., ed. OTCF New York, 1963.Anderson, G. W. “Recent Biblical Theologies: V. Th. C. Vriezen’s ‘Outline of

Old Testament Theology,“’ ExpTim, 73 (1961-1962), 113-116.-. “Israel’s Creed: Sung, Not Signed,” SE 16 (1963), 277-285.Aubert, R. “Discussions recentes autour de la Theologio de l’Histoire,” Col-

lectanea Mechliniensia, 18 (1948), 129-149.Auvray, R, et al. CAT et les chretiens. Paris, 1951.Baab, Otto J. “Old Testament Theology: Its Possibility.” In The Study of the

Bible Today and Tomorrow. Ed: H. R. Willoughby. Chicago, 1947. Pp. 4Ol-418.

-. The Theology of the Old Testament. Nashville, 1949.Baker, D. L. Two Testaments, One Bible: A Study of Some Modern Solutions to

the Theological Problem of the Relationship Between the Old and NewTestaments. Downers Grove, 1977.

Baker, L. “The Construction of an Old Testament Theology,” fieologv, 58(1955) 252-257.

Barnett, T. A. “Trends in Old Testament Theology,” Cl?: 6 (1960) 91-101.Barr, J. “The Problem of Old Testament Theology and the History of Religion,”

CjT, 3 (1957), 141-149.-. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford, 1961.-. “Recent Biblical Theologies: VI. Gerhard von Rad’s Theologie des AT,”

ExpTim, 73 (1962), 142-146.


Barthelemy, D. Dieu et son Image. Ebauche dune Theologie biblique. Paris,1964.

Barton, John. “Old Testament Theology.” In Beginning Old Testament StudyEd. J. Rogerson. London, 1983. Pp. 90-112.

-. “Classifying Biblical Criticism,” JSOT, 29 (1984), 27-28.-. Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study Philadelphia,

1984.Bauer, Georg Lorenz. Theologie desAlten Testaments oder Abriss der religiosen

Begripe der alten Hebtier. Von den &&ten Zeiten bis auf den Aufang derchristlichen Epoche. Zum Gebrauch akademischer Vorlesungen. Leipzig,1796.

-. Biblische Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Leipzig, 1796-1802.

Baumgartel, fiiedrich. Die Bedeutung des Alten Testaments ftir den Christen.Schwerin, 1925.

-. “Erw@ungen zur Darstellung der Theologie des AT,” IZZ, 76 (1951),257-272.

-. Verheissung. Zur R-age des evangelischen %xYindnisses des AltenTestaments. Gtitersloh, 1952.

-. “Ohne Schliissel vor der ‘Bir des Wortes Gottes?” Evl; 13 (1953), 413-421.

-. “Das alttestamentliche Geschehen als ‘heilgeschichtliches’ Gesche-hen.” In Geschichte und Altes Testament. Aufsdtze von I&! E Albright et al.Beitrage zur historischen Theologie, 16. Bibingen, 1953. Pp. 13-28.

-. “Das hermeneutische Problem des Alten Testaments,” 7ZZ, 79 (1954),199-211. Trans. “The Hermeneutical Problem of the Old Testament.” InC. Westermann, ed., EOTH. Richmond, 1963. Pp. 134-159.

-. “Der Dissensus im Verstandnis des Alten Testaments,” EvT 14 (1954)298-313.

-, “Gerhard von Rads Theologie des AT,” TLZ, 86 (1961), 891-816,895-908.

-. “Der Tod des Religionsstifters,” KuD, 9 (1963), 223-233.Baumgarten-Crusi,us, E L. 0. Grunhtige der biblischen Theologie. Jena, 1828.Baumgartner, Walter. “Die Auslegung des Alten Testament im Streit der

Gegenwart,” Schweizerische Theologische Umschau, 11 (1941) 17-38.Beauchamp, I? “Propositions sur l’alliance de l’AT comme structure centrale,”

RSR, 58 (1970) 161-194.-. L’un et l’autre Testament. Essai de lecture. Paris, 1976.Beisser, E “Irrwege und Wege der historisch-kritischen Bibelwissenschaft,”

Neue Zeitschriftfir systematische Theologie, 15 (1973), 192-214.Beker, J. Christiaan. “Biblical Theology Today,” Princeton Seminary Bulletin,

6 (1968) 13-19.-. “Biblical Theology in a Time of Confusion,” TToday 25 (1968), 185-

194.-. “Reflections on Biblical Theology,” h&up, 24 (1970) 303-320.


Benoit, I? “Exegese et Theologie Biblique.” In E&g&se et Thbologie. Paris, 1968.III, 1-13.

Berlin, Adele. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Sheffield, 1983.Betti, Emilio. “Hermeneutics as the General Science of Geisteswissenschaf-

ten.” In Contemporary Hermeneutics: Hermeneutics as Method, Philosophy,and Critique. Ed. Josef Bleicher. London, 1980. Pp. 51-94.

Betz, Otto. “Biblical Theology, History of.” In IDB, I, 432-437.Bikerland, H. “Israelitisk-jadisk religionshistorie og gammeltestamentlig

bibelteologie,” Norsk Teologisk Tidsskrij?, 37 (1936), l-19.Birch, B. C. “Tradition, Canon and Biblical Theology,” HBI: 2 (1980), 113-125.-. “Old Testament Theology: Its Task and Future,” HB?: 6’/ 1 (1984), vi.Bjerdalen, A. J. “Det Gamle Testaments Teologi, Metodiske haved problemer,”

fidsskrifi for Teologi og Kirke, 30 (1959), 92-116.Blenkinsopp, J. A. Sketchbook of Biblical Theology. London, 1968.-. Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins.

Notre Dame, IN, 1977.-. Wisdom and Law in the Old Testament. Oxford, 1983.Bodenstein, W. “Verheissung im Alten und Neuen Testament,” Zum Beispiel,

6 (1971) 90-97.Boman, Thorleif. Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek. London, 1960.Bormann, C. von. “Die Zweideutigkeit der hermeneutischen mahrung.” In

Hermeneutik und Ideologiekritik. Frankfurt, 1971. Pp. 83-119.Bormann, C. von, and Holzhey, H. “Kritik.” In Historisches Wirterbuch der

Philosophie, m, 1249-1282.Borowitz, Eugene B. “The Problem of the Form of a Jewish Theology,” Hebrew

Union College Annual, 40-41 (1969-1970), 391-408.Boschi, B. G. “Per una teologia dell’Antico Testamento,” Sacm Dottrina, 21

(1976) 147-174.Braaten, C. E History and Hermeneutics. Philadelphia, 1966.Branton, J. R., R. A. Brown, M. Burrows, and J. D. Smart, “Our Present Sit-

uation in Biblical Theology,” Religion in Lzfe, 26 (1956-571, 5-39.Braun, E M. “La Theologie Biblique,” Revue Thomiste, 61 (1953), 221-253.Braun, Roddy L. “Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah: Theology and Literary

History.” In Studies in the Historical Books of the Old Testament. Ed. J. A.Emerton. Supplements to VT, 30. Leiden, 1979. Pp. 52-64.

Brecht, M. “Johann Albrecht Bengels Theologie der S&rift,” ZIK, 64 (1967),99-120.

Brekelmans, C., ed. Questions disputbes d’Ancien Testament: M&ode et th&ologie. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 33. Lou-vain, 1974.

Brettler, Marc. “Canon: How the Books of the Hebrew Bible Were Chosen,”Bible Review, 5/4 (1989), 12-13.

Bright, John. “Recent Biblical Theologies: VIII. Edmond Jacobs ‘Theology ofthe Old Testament,’ ” ExpTim, 73 (1961-1962), 304-308.

-. The Authority of the Old Testament. Nashville, 1967.


Brown, R. E. “The Contribution of Historical Biblical Criticism to EcumenicalChurch Discussion.” In Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: The RatzingerConference on Bible and Church. Ed. Richard J. Neuhaus. Encounter Se-ries, 9. Grand Rapids, 1989. Pp. 24-49.

Brown, R. M. “Story and Theology.” In Philosophy of Religion and Theology:Proceedings of the American Academy of Religion. Ed. J. W. McClennon,Jr. Missoula, 1974. Pp. 55-72.

Bruce, E E ?%e New Testament Development of Old Testament Themes. GrandRapids, 1973.

Brueggemann, W. Tradition for Crisis: A Study in Hosea. Richmond, 1968.-. “The Kerygma of the Priestly Writers,” ZAW 84 (1972), 397-413.-. “Yahwist.” In IDB Supplement. Nashville, 1976. Pp. 971-975.-. ‘A Convergence in Recent Old Testament Theologies,” JSOT, 18 (1980)

2-18.-. “A Shape for Old Testament Theology, I: Structure Legitimation,” CBQ,

47 (1985), 28-46.-. “Canon and Dialectic.” In God and His Temple. Ed. L. E. Frizzell.

S. Orange, NJ, 1981. Pp. 20-29.-. “A Shape for Old Testament Theology, II: Embrace of Pain,” CBQ, 47

(1985), 395-415.-. “Futures in Old Testament Theology,” HB?; 6 (1984). l-11.Brueggemann, W., and Wolff, H. W. I7ie vitality of Old Testament tiditions.

2nd ed. Atlanta, 1982.Bultmann, Rudolf. “Die Bedeutung des Alten Testament fiir den christlichen

Glauben.” In Glauben und Verstehen, I. 5th. ed. ‘Bibingen, 1964. 1st ed.1933. Pp. 313-336. Trans. “The Significance of the Old Testament for theChristian Faith.” In OTCE A Theological Discussion. Ed. Bernhard W.Anderson. London, 1964. Pp. 8-35.

-. “Weissagung und Erfiillung,” Studia Theologica, 2 (1948), 21-44(= m, 47 [1950], 360-383; = R. Bultmann, Glauben und Verstehen, II.3rd. ed. Tiibingen, 1961. Pp. 162-186). Trans. “Prophecy and Fulfillment.”In Essays Philosophical and Theological. London, 1955. Pp. 182-208.

Burden, J. J. “Methods of Old Testament Theology: Past, Present and Future,”Theologia Evangelica, 10 (1977), 14-33.

Burrows, M. “The Task of Biblical Theology,” JBR, 14 (1946), 13-15.-. An Outline of Biblical Theology Philadelphia, 1946.Buss, Martin. “The Meaning of History.” In Theology as History. Ed. J. M.

Robinson and J. B. Cobb. New Frontiers in Theology, 3. New York, 1967.Pp. 135-154.

Calull, I? J. “The Unity of the Bible,” Biblica, 65 (1984), 404-411.Campos, Jose da Silva. “Historia da Salva@o e Teologia Biblica,” Revista de

cultura biblica, 17 (1970), 72-88.Cancik, H. Mythische und historische Wohrheit. Interpretationen zu Texten der

hethitischen, biblischen und griechischen Historiographic. StuttgarterBibelstudien, 48. Stuttgart, 1970.


Carroll, R. F! “Canonical Criticism: A Recent Trend in Biblical Studies,” Exp-Tim, 92 (1980), 73-78.

Cazelles, H. “The Unity of the Bible and the People of God,” Scripture, 18(1966), l-10.

-. LR Messie de la Bible. Christologie de lAncien Testament. Jesus et JesusChrist, 7. Paris, 1978.

-. “The Canonical Approach to Torah and Prophets,” JSOT, 16 (1980),28-31.

Childs, B. S. “Prophecy and Fulfillment,” Interp, 12 (1958), 259-271.-. “Interpretation in Faith: The Theological Responsibility of an Old

Testament Commentary,” Interp, 18 (1964), 432-449.-. Biblical Theology in Crisis. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970.-. “The Old Testament as Scripture of the Church,” CTM, 43 (1972),

709-722.-. “The Canonical Shape of the Prophetic Literature,” lnterp, 33 (1978),

46-55.-. “The Exegetical Significance of Canon for the Study of the Old

Testament.” In Congress Volume, Giittingen, 2 977. Supplements to VT, 24.Leiden, 1978. Pp. 66-80.

-. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia, 1979.-. “Response to Reviewers of Introduction to the Old Testament as Scrip-

ture,” JSOI; 16 (1980), 52-60.-. “A Response,” HBT 2 (1980), 199-211.-. “Differenzen in der Exegese. Biblische Theologie in Amerika,” Evan-

gelische Kommentare, 14 (1981), 405-406.-. “Some Reflections on the Search for a Biblical Theology,” HBT, 4

(1982) 1-12.-. The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction. London, 1984;

Philadelphia, 1985.-. Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context. London, 1985;

Philadelphia, 1986.Clavier, H. Les van’&% de la pen&e biblique et le probleme de son unite. New

Testament Studies, 43. Leiden, 1976.Clements, R. E. “The Problem of Old Testament Theology,” London Quarterly

and Holborn Review (Jan. 1965), 11-17.-, “Theodorus C. Vriezen, An Outline of Old Testament Theology.” In

Contemporary Old Testament Theologians. Ed. Robert B. Iaurin. ValleyForge, 1970. Pp. 121-140.

-. One Hundred Years of Old Testament Interpretation. Philadelphia,1976.

-. “Recent Developments in Old Testament Theology,” Epworth Review,3 (i976), 99-107.

-. “Pentateuchal Problems.” In Tradition and Interpretation: Essays byMembers of the Society for Old Testament Study Ed. G. W. Anderson.Oxford, 1977. Pp. 96-124.


-. Old Testament Theology: A fresh Approach. Atlanta: Knox, 1978.-. “History and Theology in Biblical Narrative,” HBT, 4-5 (1982-1983),

45-60.Coats, George W. “Theology of the Hebrew Bible.” In The Hebrew Bible and

Its Modern Interpreters. Ed. Douglas A. Knight and Gene M. ‘Ibcker.Philadelphia/Chico, CA, 1985. Pp. 239-262.

Coats, G. W., and Long, B. O., eds. Canon and A~tb~rity Essays in Old Testa-ment Religion and Theology. Philadelphia, 1977.

Coggins, R. J. “History and Story in Old Testament Study,” JSOT 11 (1979),36-46.

Collins, J. J. “The Biblical Precedent for Natural Theology,” ,%AB Supplement,45 (1977). 35-62.

-. “The ‘Historical Character’ of the Old Testament in Recent BiblicalTheology,” CBQ, 41 (1979), 185-204.

-. “Is a Critical Biblical Theology Possible?” In 77re Hebrew Bible andIts Interpreters. Ed. William Henry Propp, Baruch Halpern, and David NoelReedman. Winona Lake, IN, 1990. Pp. l-17.

-. “Old Testament Theology.” In The Biblical Heritage in Modern CatholicScholarship. Ed. J. J. Collins and J. D. Crossan. Wilmington, 1986. Pp.11-33.

Ciilln, D. G. C. von. Die biblische Theologie desAlten T&taments; Die biblischeTheologie des Neuen Testaments. Ed. D. Schultz. 2 ~01s. Leipzig, 1836.

Conzehmmn, Hans. “Ragen an Gerhard von Rad,” EvT 24 (1964) 113-125.Cordero, M. G. Theologia de la Biblia I. Antiguo Testamento. Madrid, 1970.Craig, Clarence Trucker. “Biblical Theology and the Rise of Historicism,” JBL,

62 (1943), 281-294.Crenshaw, James L. Gerhard von Rad. Waco, 1979.Crenshaw, James L., ed. Studies in Ancient Ismelite I@sdom. New York, 1976.Crites, S. “The Narrative Quality of Experience,” JAAR, 39 (1971) 291-311.Criinert, H. “Pladoyer fiir den Ketzer Markion,” Deutsches pfarrerblatt, 81

(1981), 562-564.Cullmann, 0. Christ and Ifme. 2nd ed. London, 1962.-. Salvation in History. London, 1967.Curtis, J. B. “A Suggested Interpretation of the Biblical Philosophy of History,”

Hebrew Union College Annual, 34 (1963), 115-123.Cwiekowski, Frederick J. “Biblical Theology as Historical Theology,” CBQ, 24

(1962) 404- 410.Davey, E N. “Biblical Theology,” Theology, 38 (1939) 166-176.Davidson, A. B. 7%e Theology of the Old Testament. Ed. S. D. I? Sahnond.

Edinburgh, 1904.Davidson, R. “Faith and History in the Old Testament,” Exp’Dm, 77 (1965 /

66), 100-104.-. “The Theology of the Old Testament.” In R. Davidson and A. R. C.

Leaney, Biblical Criticism. Pelican Guides to Modern Theology, 3. London,1970. Pp. 138-165.


-. “The Old Testament-A Question of Theological Relevance.” In Bib-lical Studies: Essays in Honour of WXBiam Barclay. Ed. J. R. McKay andJ. E Miller. London, 1976. Pp. 43-56.

Davies, G. Henton. “Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology.” In Contom-pomry Old Testament Theologians. Ed. Robert B. Laurin. Valley Forge,1970. Pp. 63-90.

de Wette, W. M. L. Biblische Dogmatik Alten und Neuen Testaments. Oderkritische Darstellung der Religionslehre des Hebmismus, des Judentbumsund Urchristenthums. Zum Gebmuch akademischer Voresungen. Berlin,1813.

Deissler, A. Die Grundbotschaft des Ahen Testaments. Freiburg: Herder, 1972.-. “Der Gott des AT.” In Die Hage nach Gott. Ed. J. Ratzinger. 2nd ed.

Deiburg i. Br., 1973. Pp. 45-58.Dentan, R. C. “The Old Testament and a Theology for Today,” Anglican Zheo-

logical Review, 27 (1945), 17-27.-. “The Nature and Function of Old Testament Theology,” JBR, 14 (1946),

16-21.-. “The Unity of the Old Testament,” Interp, 5 (1951), 153-173.-. Preface to Old Testament Theology. 2nd ed. New York, 1963.-. A first Reader in Biblical Theology. New York, 1965.-. The Knowledge of God in Ancient Israel. New York, 1965.Deutschmann, J. Theologia Biblica. 1710.Dever, William G. “Biblical Theology and Biblical Archaeology: An Appre-

ciation of G. Ernest Wright,” Harvard Theological Review, 73 (1980), 1-16.DeVries, Simon J. Yesterday Today and Tomorrow: Time and History in the

Old Testament. Grand Rapids, 1975.Dibelius, Martin. “Biblical Theology and the History of Biblical Religion.” In

Twentieth Century Theology in the Making, I. Ed. J. Pelikan. New York,1971. Pp. 23-31.

Dickerhoff, Heinrich. Wege ins Alte Testament-und zurtick. Vom Sinn undden Moghchkeiten einer ‘Theologie mit dem Alten Testament’ in der Arbeitmit Erwachsenen. Europlische Hochschulschriften, 23 / 211. Frankfurt /Bern / New York, 1983.

Diem, H. Theologie als kirchhche W%senschaft. Giitersloh, 1951.Diest, Henricus A. Theologia biblica, Praeter succinctam Locorum com-

munium delineationem exhibens Testimonia Scripturae, Ad singulos locos,locorumque singula capita, capitumque singula membra, pertinentia.Daventria, 1643.

Dietrich, W. “Rache. Erwagungen zu einem alttestamentlichen Thema,” Ev?:36 (1976), 450-472.

“Der rote Faden im Alten Testament,” EvT, 49 (1989), 232-250.Dilley, E B. “Does the ‘God Who Acts’ Really Act?” Anglican Theological

Review, 47 (1965). 66-80.Dillmann, A. Handbuch der alttestamenthchen Theologie. Ed. R. Kittel. Leip-

zig, 1895.


Dirksen, I? B. “Die mogelijkheid van een theologie van het Oude Testament,”Nederlands[ch)e theologisch njdschrifi, 36 (1982), 279-290.

Dreyfus, E “L’Actualisation a I’interieur de la Bible,” Revue Biblique, 83(1976), 161-202.

Duhm, Bernhard. Die Theologie der Propheten. Leipzig, 1875.Dulles, Avery. “Response to Krister Stendahl’s ‘Method in the Study of Biblical

Theology.’ ” In The Bible in Modern Scholarship. Ed. J. P. Hyatt. Nashville,1965. Pp. 210-219.

-. “Scripture: Recent Protestant and Catholic Views,” TToday, 37 (lQ89),7-26.

Dunn, J. D. G. “Levels of Canonical Authority,” HBT, 4 (1982), 13-60.Dyrness, W. Themes in Old Testament ‘Lheologv. Downers Grove, IL, 1979.Eakin, E E. “Wisdom, Creation and Covenant,” Perspectives in Religious Stud-

ies, 4 (1977), 225-239.Ebeling, G. “Die Bedeutung der historisch-kritischen Methode fur die prot-

estantische Theologie und Kirche,” Z7K 47 (1950), l-46. Trans. “TheSignificance of the Critical Historical Method for Church and Theologyin Protestantism.” In G. Ebeling, Word and Faith. London, 1963. Pp. 17-61.

-. “Die Anfange von Luthers Hermeneutik,” 27K, 48 (1951), 172-230.-. “The Meaning of ‘Biblical Theology.‘” In G. Ebeling, Word and Faith.

London, 1963. Pp. 79-97.-. Einfihrung in die theologische Sprachlehre. Xibingen, 1971.-. Stua!ium der Theologie. Eine enzy~opiidische Orientierung. Iiibingen,

1975.Ehlen, J. A. “Old Testament Theology as Heilsgeschichte,” C7%4, 35 (1964),

517-544.Eichrodt, Walther. “Hat die alttestamentliche Theologie noch selbshindige Be

deutung innerhalb der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft?” ZAw 47 (1929),83-91. Trans. “Does Old Testament Theology Still Have Independent Signif-icance Within Old Testament Scholarship.” In fie Howering of Old TestamentTheology: A Reader in Twentieth Century Old Testament Theology Ed. B. C.Ollenburger, E. A. Martens, and G. E Hasel. Wmona Lake, IN, 1991.

-. Theologie desAT. 3 ~01s. Leipzig, 1933, 1935, 1939. Trans. TOT 2 ~01s.Philadelphia, 1961, 1967.

-. “Offenbarung und Geschichte im Alten Testament,” n, 4 (19481,321ff.

-. “1st typologische Exegese sachgemasse Exegese?” Repr. in Problemeahtestamenthcher Hermeneutik. Ed. C. Westermann. TBti, 11. Munich,1960. Pp. 205-226. Trans. “Is Typological Exegesis an AppropriateMethod?” In EOTH. Pp. 224-245.

-. “Darf man heute noch von einem Gottesbund mit Israel reden?” IZ,30 (1974), 193-206.

Eissfeldt, Otto. “Israelitisch-jtidische Religionsgeschichte und alttestament-lithe Theologie,” ZAn! 44 (1926) 1-12. Reprinted in KJeine Schriften, I.Tubingen, 1962. Pp. 105-114. Trans. “History of Israelite-Jewish Religionand Old Testament Theology.” In The Flowering of Old Testament Theology:


A Reader in Twentieth Century Old Testament Theology. Ed. B. C. Ollen-burger, E. A. Martens, and G. E Hasel. Winona Lake, IN, 1991.

. “Geschichtliches und ijbergeschichtliches im Alten Testaments: Volkund ‘K&he’ in Alten Testament.” Theologische Studien und Kntiken, 109(1947) 9-23.

Ellis, F? E The Yahwist: The Bible’s first Theologian. Notre Dame, 1968.Evans, M. J. “The Old Testament as Christian Scripture,” Fox Evangefica, 16

(1986), 25-32.Fackre, Gabriel. “Narrative Theology: An Overview,” Interp, 37 (1983), 34O-

352.Fannon, Patrick. ‘X Theology of the Old Testament-Is it Possible?” Scrip

torium, 19 / 46 (1967), 46-53.Fensham, E C. “The Covenant as Giving Expression to the Relationship be-

tween Old Testament and New Testament,” TynBul, 22 (1971), 82-94.-. “Die vorhoudingstheologie as ‘n moontlike oplossing vir ‘n theologie

van die Ou Testament,” Nederduitse Gereformeerde Teologiese Tydskrij 26(1985), 246-249.

Festorazzi, F. “Rassegna di teologia deBAT,” Rivista Biblica, 10 (1962), 2Q7-316; 12 (1964), 27-48.

Filson, Floyd V ‘A New Testament Student’s Approach to Biblical Theology,”JBR, 14 (1946), 22-28.

-. “Biblische Theologie in Amerika,” IZZ, 75 (1950), 71-80.---. “The Unity of the Old and the New Testaments: A Bibliographical

Survey,” Interp, 5 (1951) 134-152.-. “The Unity Between the Testaments.” In The Interpreter’s One-Volume

Commentary on the Bible. Nashville, 1971. Pp. 989-993.Fliickiger, E Theologie der Geschichte. Die biblische Rede von Gott und die

neuere Geschichtstheologie. Wuppertal, 1979.Fohrer, G. “Der Mittelpunkt einer Theologie des AT,” ZZ, 24 (1968), 161-172.

Trans. “The Centre of a Theology of the Old Testament,” NederduitseGereformeerde TeoIogiese Tydskriif, 7 (1966), 198-206.

-. Theologische Grundstrukturen desAlten Testaments. Theologische Bib-liothek Tdpelmann, 24. Berlin, 1972.

Ford, David. Barth and God’s Story: Biblical Narrative and the TheologicalMethod of Karl Barth in the “Church Dogmatics.” Frankfurt/Bern, 1981.

fiance, R. Jesus and the Old Testament. London, 1971.Reedman, David Noel. “The Biblical Idea of History,” Interp, 21 (1967) 32-49.I+ei, Hans. 711e Eclipse of Biblical Narmtive: A Study in Eighteenth and

Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics. New Haven, 1974.-. “Response to ‘Narrative Theology: An Evangelical Appraisal,’ ” Ttinity

Journal, NS 8 (1987), 21-24.fietheim, T. E. “Elohist.” In IDB Supplement. Nashville, 1976. Pp. 259-263.Fridrichsen, A. et al. 7Iie Root of the fine: Essays in Biblical Theology. West-

minster / New York, 1953.Fritsch, Charles T. “New Trends in Old Testament Theology,” BibSac, 103

(i946), 293-305.


-. “Biblical Theology II: The Bible as Redemptive History,” BibSac, 103(1946), 418-430.

Frizzell, L. E., ed. God and His Temple: Re&ctions on professor Samuel Terrien’sThe Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology. S. Orange, NJ, 1981.

Ruchon, I? “Sur l’hermeneutique de Gerhardvon Rad,” RSPT, 55 (1971), 4-32.-. “Hermeneutique, language et ontologie. Un discernement du pla-

tonisme chez H.-G. Gadamer,“Archives de Philosophic, 36 (1973), 529-568;37 (1974), 223-242, 353-375, 533-571.

I+mhs, E. “Theologle oder Ideologie,” ZZZ, 88 (1963) 257-260.-. Marburger Hermeneutik. Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theo-

logic, 9. ‘Iiibingen, 1968.Gabler, J. I? “De iusto discrimine theologiae biblicae et dogmaticae regun-

disque recte utriusque finibus.” In Opuscula academica, Kleinere theolo-gische Schr$ten, II. Ulm, 1831. Pp. 179-198. Trans. “On the Proper Dis-tinction Between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology and the SpecificObjectives of Each.” In J. Sandys-Wunsch and L. Eldredge. “J. F! Gablerand the Distinction Between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology: Translation,Commentary, and Discussion of His Originality,” SE 33 (1980), 134-144.

Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 7hzth and Method. New York, 1975. 2nd ed. 1989.Gaffin, Richard B. “Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology,” Westminster

Theological Journal, 38 (1976), 281-299.Gamble, Connolly. “The Nature of Biblical Theology,” Intezp, 5 (1951), 462-

467.-. “The Literature of Biblical Theology: A Bibliographical Study,” Interp,

7 (1953), 466-480.Gelin, A. Les idles maitmsses de l’tincien Testament. Paris, 1948.Gese, H. “The Idea of History in the Ancient Near East and the Old Testa-

ment,” Journal of theology and the Church, 1 (1965), 49-64.-. “Erw@tmgen zur Einheit der biblischen Theologie,” Z’IK 67 (1970),

417-436.. Vom Sinai zum Zion. Alttestamentliche Beitige zur biblischen Theo-

logic. Beitriige zur evangelischen Theologie, 64. Munich, 1974.-. “Tradition and Biblical Theology.” In Tradition and Theology in tbe

Old Testament. Ed. D. A. Knight. Philadelphia, 1977. Pp. 301-326.-. Zor biblische Theologie. Ahtestamentliche Wutrage. Munich, 1977.

Trans. Essays on Biblical Theology. Minneapolis, 1981.-. “Wisdom, Son of Man, and the Origins of Christology: The Consistent

Development of Biblical Theology,” HB?: 3 (1981), 23~57.Geyer, Hans-Georg. “Geschichte als theologisches Problem,” EvT 22 (1962)

92-104.-. “Zur Frage der Notwendigkeit des Alten Testaments,” Evl: 25 (1965).

207-237.Gilkey, L. B. “Cosmology, Ontology, and the Travail of Biblical Language,” JR,

41 (1961) 194-205.Goldberg, Michael. Theology and Narmtive: A Critical Introduction. Nashville,

1982.


Goldingay, John. “ ‘That You May Know That Yahweh Is God’: A Study in theRelationship Between Theology and Historical ‘Buth in the Old Testa-ment,” i’jnBu1, 23 (1972), 58-93.

-. “The Chronicler as Theologian,” BIB, 5 (1975), 99-126.-. “The Study of Old Testament Theology: Its Aims and Purpose,”

TynBul, 26 (1975), 34-52.-. “The ‘Salvation History’ Perspective and the ‘Wisdom’ Perspective

Within the Context of Biblical Theology,” EvQ, 51 (1979), 194-207.-. Approaches to Old Testament Interpretation. Downers Grove, 1981.-. “Diversity and Unity in Old Testament Theology,” Vr: 34 (1984)

152-168.-. Theological Diversity and the Authority of the Old Testament. Grand

Rapids, 1987.Goossens, G. “La philosophie de l’histoire dans l’Ancient Orient,” Sacm

pagina, 1 (1959), 242-252.Goppelt, L. Typos: Die ljpologische Bedeutung des AT im Neuen. 2nd ed.

Darmstadt, 1966. Trans. Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the OldTestament in the New. Grand Rapids, 1982.

-. “Typos.” In 7DNT, VII. Grand Rapids, 1972. Pp. 246-259.Goshen-Gottstein, M. H. “Tam&h Theology: The Religion of the Old Testa-

ment and the Place of Jewish Biblical Theology.” In Ancient IsraeliteReligion: Essays in Honor of Fmnk Moore Cross. Ed. P D. Miller, I? D.Hanson, and S. D. McBride. Philadelphia, 1987. Pp. 617-644.

Gottwald, N. K. “Recent Biblical Theologies: IX. Walther Eichrodt’s ‘Theologyof the Old Testament,’ ” Exp’lim, 74 (1963), 209-212.

Gottwald, N. K. 7%e Ih’bes of Yahweh. Maryknoll, 1979.-. fie Hebrew Bible: A Socio-Litemry Introduction. Philadelphia, 1985.Grass, H. Christhche Glaubenslehre. Stuttgart, 1974.GrLser, Erich. “Die Politische Herausforderung an die biblische Theologie,”

EvT, 30 (1970), 228-254.-. “Antijudaismus bei Bultmann? Eine Erwiderung,” WTssenschaft und

Praxis in Kirche und GeseBschaJ?, 67 (1978), 419-429.- “Offene bagen im Umkreis einer Biblischen Theologie,” ZTK, 77

(1980), 200-221.Greig, Joseph. “Geschichte and Heilsgeschichte in Old Testament Interpreta-

tion with Special Reference to Gerhard von Rad.” Unpublished Ph.D.dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 1974.

-. “Some Formative Aspects in the Development of Gerhard von Rad’sIdea of History,” AUSS, 16 (1978), 313-331.

Grelot, P Sens Chretien de Z’AT. Tour&, 1962.-. “La lecture chretienne de FAT.” In Otj en sont les etudes bibliques?

Ed. J. J. Weber and J. Schmitt. Paris, 1968. Pp. 29-50.Gross, Heinrich. “Was ist alttestamentliche Theologie?” ‘IZ (‘Bier), 67 (1958),

355-363.Gross, W. and I? Mussner, “Die Einheit von Alte und Neuem Testament,”

lnternationale Katholische Zeitschrift, 3 (1974), 544-555.


Groves, Joseph W. Actualization and Interpretation in the Old Testament.SBLDS, 86. Atlanta, 1987.

Gunkel, Hermann. “Biblische Theologie und biblische Religionsgeschichte,I. des Alten Testaments.” In Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart.2nd ed. Ttibingen, 1927. I, 1089-1091.

-. What Remains of the Old Testament and Other Essays. New York,1928.

-. The Legends of Genesis: The Biblical Saga and History New York,1965.

Guuneweg, A. H. J. Vom Verstehen des Ahen Testaments: Eine Hermeneutik.Giittingen, 1977. Trans. Understanding the Old Testament. Old TestamentLibrary. London/Philadelphia, 1978.

-. “‘Theologie’ des Alten Testaments oder ‘Biblische Theologie’?” InTextgemiiss. Aufsiitze und Beitiige zur Hermeneutik des Alten Testaments.Festschriftfir Ernst Wiirthwein zum 70. Geburtstag. Ed. A. H. J. Gunnewegand 0. Kaiser. Giittingen, 1979. Pp. 38-46.

-. Sola Scriptum. Be&age zu Exegese und Hermenutik des Alten Testa-ments. GGttingen, 1983.

-. “Altes Testament und existentiale Interpretation.” In RudoZf BuhmannsWerk und W%kung. Ed. B. Jasper. Darmstadt, 1984. Pp. 332-347.

Gunneweg, A. H. J., and Kaiser, O., eds. Textgemiiss. Aufititze und Beitage zurhermeneutik des Alten Testaments. Festschriffir Ernst Wurthwein zum 70.Geburtstag. Giittingen, 1979.

Guthrie, Donald. “Biblical Authority and New Testament Scholarship,” VOXEvangelica, 16 (1986), 7-23.

Guthrie, H. H., Jr. God and History in the Old Testament. London, 1961.Haacker, K. “Die Fragestellung der Biblischen Theologie ala exegetische Auf-

gabe.” In K. Haacker et al., Bibhsche Theologie heute. Biblisch-theologischeStudien, 1. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1977. Pp. 9-23.

Haacker, K., ed. Bibhsche Theologie heute. Biblisch-theologische Studien, 1.Neukimhen-Vluyn, 1977.

Haag, H. “Biblische Theologie,” Mysterium Sahrtis, I (Einsiedeln / Ztirich /Kiln, 1965), 440-459.

-. Das Buch des Bundes. Aufsiitze zur Bibel und zu ihrer Welt. Dusseldorf,1980.

-. “Vom Eigenwert des Alten Testaments,” Theologische Quartalschrift,160 (1980), 2-16.

Hahn, E “Probleme historischer Kritik,” Zeitschrifi fir die neutestamenthcheW%senschaft, 63 (1972), 1-17.

-. “Exegese und Fundamentaltheologie,” fieologische Quartalschrifl,155 (1975), 262-280.

-. “Provokative Thesen zu einem provokativen Buch,” Ev?: 83 (19831,178-184.

Halbe, Jorn. “ ‘Ahorientalisches Weltordnungsdenken’ und alttestamentlicheTheologie: Zur Kritik eines Ideologems am Beispiel des IsraelitischenRechts,” Zrx; 76 (1979), 381-418.


Halperin, J. “Les dimensions juives de l’histoire,” Revue de theologie et dephilosophic, 98 (1965), 222-240.

Hamp, V. “Neuere Theologien des Alten Testaments,” Biblische Zeitschtift, 2(1958) 303-313.

-. “Geschichtsschreibung im Alten Testament.” In Speculum Historiale.Festschrift fttr J. Sporl. Ribourg / Munich, 1965. Pp. 134-142.

Hanson, I? Dynamic ‘R-anscendence: The Correlation of a Confessional Heri-tage and Contemporary Experience in a Biblical Model of Divine ActivityPhiladelphia, 1978.

-. The Diversity of Scripture: A Theological Interpretation. OBT, 11.Philadelphia, 1982.

-. “Theology, Old Testament.” In Harper’s Bible Dictionary, Ed. PaulAchtemeier. San Francisco, 1985. Pp. 1057-1062.

-. The People Called: The Growth of Community in the Bible. San Fran-cisco, 1986.

Haroutunian, J. “Recent Theology and the Biblical Mind,” JBR, 8 (1940).18-23.

Harrelson, Walter. “The Limited Task of Old Testament Theology,” HBI: 6 / 1(1984) 65-71.

Harrington, Wilfrid J. ne Rrti of Biblical TIreology Dublin, 1973.Hartlich, C. “Historisch-kritische Methode in ihrer Anwendung auf Gescheh-

nisaussagen der Hl. S&rift,” Z’IK 75 (1978), 467-484.Hartlich, C. and W. Sachs. Der Ursprung des Mythosbegriyes in der modernen

Bibelwissenschaft. Tubingen, 1952.Harvey, J. “Symbolique et theologie biblique,” Sciences ec&siastiques, 9

(1957), 141-157.-. “The New Diachronic Biblical Theology of the Old Testament (1960-

1970),” B’I’B, 1 (1971) 5-29.-. “Wisdom Literature and Biblical Theology, I,” BIB, 1 (1971), 308-319.Harvey, Van A. The Historian and the Believer. New York, 1966.Hasel, G. E “The Problem of History in Old Testament Theology Debate,”

AUSS, 8 (1970) 32-35, 41-46.-. “Capito, Schwenckfeld and Crautwald on Sabbatarian Anabaptist

Theology,” Mennonite Quarterly Review, 46 (1972), 41-57.-. The Remnant: The History and TheoIogV of the Remnant Idea from

Genesis to Isaiah. Andrews University Monographs, 5; Berrien Springs,MI, 1972. 2nd ed. 1975.

---. “The Problem of the Center in the OT Theology Debate,” .ZAw 86(1974), 65-82.

-. New Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate. GrandRapids, 1978.

-. “The Future of Biblical Theology.” In Perspectives on EvangelicalTheology. Ed. K. S. Kantzer and S. N. Gundry. Grand Rapids, 1979. Pp.179-194.

-. “A Decade of Old Testament Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Pros-pect,” Z.&t! 93 (1981), 165-184.


-. “Biblical Theology: Then, Now and Tomorrow,” HBT 4 (1982) 61-93.-. “Biblical Theology Movement.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology.

Ed. Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids, 1984. Pp. 149-152.-. “The Relationship Between Biblical Theology and Systematic The-

ology,” Trinity Journal, NS 5 (1984), 113-127.-. “Major Recent Issues in Old Testament Theology 1978-1983,” JSOT

31 (1985), 31-53.-. “Old Testament Theology from 1978-1987,“AUSS, 26 / 2 (1988). 133-

157.-. “Biblical Theology: Current Issues and Future Prospects,” Catalyst,

16 / 1 (Jan. 1990), 6-8.-. “The Future of Old Testament Theology.” In The Flowering of Old

Testament Theology: A Reader in ‘Rventieth Century Old Testament The-ology Ed. B. C. Ollenburger, E. A. Martens, and G. E Hasel. Winona Lake,IN, 1991.

Hauerwas, Stanley and L. Gregory Jones, eds. why Narmtive? Readings inNarrative Theology. Grand Rapids, 1996.

Hausmann, G. “Biblische Theologie und kirchliches Bekenntnis.” In Leben-diger Umgang mit Schz$ und Bekenntnis: Theologische Beitriige zur Bezie-hung von Schrift und Bekenntnis und zu ihrer Bedeutung fir das Lebender firche. Ed. J. Track. Stuttgart, 1980. Pp. 41-61.

Hayes, John H. and Frederick Prussner. Old Testament Theology: Its Historyand Development. Atlanta, 1985.

Haymann, Carl. Biblische Theologie. Leipzig, 1708.Heinisch, I? Theologie des AT Bonn, 1940. Trans. Theologv of the Old Testa-

ment. Collegeville, MN, 1950.Hellbart, Hans. “Die Auslegung des Alten Testament als theologische Diszi-

plin,” TB1, 16 (1937) 140ff.Hempel, J. ‘Wttestamentliche Theologie in protestantischer Sich heute,” Bib

hotheca Orientalis, 15 (1958), 206-214.-. “Die Faktizitlt der Geschichte im biblischen Denken.” In Biblical

Studies in Memory of H. C. AReman. Locust Valley, NY, 1960. Pp. 67-88.-. Geschichten und Geschichte im AT bis zur persischen Zeit. Gtitersloh,

1964.Hengel, M. ‘Historische Methoden und theologische Auslegung des Neuen

Testaments,” KuD, 19 (1973), 85-90.Henry, Carl E H. God, Revelation, andAuthority. 6 vols. Waco, TX, 1976-1983.-. “Narrative Theology: An Evangelical Appraisal,” llfinity Journal, NS

8 (1987), 3-19.Herberg, W. “Biblical Faith as ‘Heilsgeschichte,’ ” Christian Scholar, 39 (1956),

25-31.Herbert, Arthur S. “Is there a Theology of the Old Testament?” ExpTIm, 12

(1950), 361-363.Hermisson, Hans-Jtirgen. “Observations on the Creation Theology in Wis-

dom.” In Ismelite Wisdom: Theological and Literary Essays in Honor ofSamuel Terrien. Ed. John G. Gammie et al. Missoula, 1978. Pp. 43-57.


Herms, E. and J. Ringleben, eds. Vergessene Theologen des 19. undfrtihen 20.Jahrhunderts. Gattingen, 1984.

Herrmann, S. “Die Konstruktive Restauration. Das Deuteronomium als Mittebiblischer Theologie.” In Probleme bibhscher Theologie. Gerhard von Radzum 70. Geburtstag. ed. H. W. Wolff. Munich, 1970. Pp. 155-170.

Heschel, Abraham J. Man Is Not Alone. New York, 1951.Hesse, E “Die Erforschung der Geschichte als theologische Aufgabe,” KuD, 4

(1958), 1-19.-. “Kerygma oder geschichtliche Wirkhchkeit?” Z7K, 57 (1960), 17-26.-. “Zur Rage der Wertung und der Geltung alttestamentlicher Texte.”

InPmbleme ahtestamenthcher Hermeneutik. Ed. C. Westermann. 1969. Pp.266-294. Trans. “The Evaluation and Authority of Old Testament Texts.”In EOTH. Pp. 285-313.

-. “Wolfhart Pannenberg und das AT,” Neue ZeitschriJIfir systematischeTheotogie und Rehgionswissenschaft, 7 (1965), 174-199.

-. Das Alte Testament aJs Buch der Kirche. Giitersloh, 1966.-. “Bewahrt sich eine ‘Theologie der Heilstatsachen’ am AT? Zum Ver-

haltnis von Faktum und Deutung?” ZIK, 81 (1969) 1-17.-. Abschied von der Heilsgeschichte. Theologischer Studien, 108. Zurich,

1971.-. “Zur Profanitlt der Geschichte Israels,” Z’FK 71 (1974), 262- 290.-. “Die Israelfrage in neueren Entwtirfen Biblischer Theologie,” KuD, 27

(1981) 180-197.Hessen, J. Griechische oder Biblische Theologie. Leipzig, 1956.Hessler, R. “De Theologiae Biblicae Veteris Testamenti Problemate,” Anton,

25 (1950) 407-424.Hicks, R. L. “G. Ernest Wright and Old Testament Theology,” Anglican Theo-

logical Review, 55 (1976), 158-178.Hicks, R. L. “Present-day Trends in Biblical Theology,” Anglican Theological

Review, 32 (1950), 136-153.Higgins, A. J. B. The Christian Significance of the Old Testament. London, 1949.Hinson, D. E The Theology of the Old Testament. London, 1976.Hirsch, E. Das AT und die Predigt des Evangeliums. Tiibingen, 1936.Hirsch, E. D. Validity in Interpretation. New Haven, 1967.-. The Aims of Interpretation. Chicago, 1976.Hitzig, I? lrorlesungen iiber biblische Theologie und messianische Weissagun-

gen des-Alten Testaments. Ed. J. J. Kneucker. Karlsruhe, 1889.Hofius, 0. “ ‘Rechtfertigung der Gottlosen’ als Thema biblischer Theologie,”

Jahdmch fiir Biblische Theologie, 2 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1987) 95-105.Hofmann, Johann Christian Konrad von. Weissagung und E$illung im Ahen

und in Neuen Testaments. Niirdlingen, 1841.-. Interpreting the Bible. Minneapolis, 1959.Hegenhaven, Jesper. Problems and Prospects of Old Testament Theology. The

Biblical Seminar. Sheffield, 1988.Hohmann, M. Die Correlation von Altem und Neuem Bund. Innerbiblische

Korrelation staff Kontmstrelation. Berlin, 1978.


Holman, J. C. M. “Twintig jaar theologie van het Oude Testament,” Twintigjaar ontwikkehngen in de theologie (Logister, 1987), 35-44.

Honecker, M. “Zum Verstlndnis der Geschichte in Gerhard von Rads Theo-logie des AT,” EvT 23 (1963), 143-168.

Htibner, H. “Das Gesetz als elementares Thema einer Biblischen Theologie?”KuD, 22 (1976) 250-276.

-. “Biblische Theologie und Theologie des Neuen Testaments,” KirD, 27(1981), 2-19.

-. “Rudolf Bultmann und das Alte Testament,” KuD, 30 (1984), 250-272.Hufnagel, W. F. Handbuch der bibhschen Theologie, I-II / 1. Erlangen, 1785,

1789.Hmnmel, Horace D. “Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament,”

Dialog, 2 (1963), 108-117.Imschoot, F? van. Theologie de l’tincien Testament. Vol. I, Diem Vol. II,

Lhomme. Tournai, 1954, 1956. Vol. I trans. Theology of the Old Testament.New York, 1965.

Irwin, William A. “The Reviving Theology of the Old Testament,” JR, 25(1945) 235-246.

-. “Trends in Old Testament Theology,” JBR, 19 (1951), 183-190.Jacob, Edmond. “Possibilites et limits dune theologie biblique,” RHPR, 46

(1951) 116-130.-. Les themes essentiels dune theologie de 1’Ancien Testament. Neu-

chatel, 1955.-. Tbeologie de J’Xacien Testament. Neuchatel, 1955. Trans. Theology of

the Old Testament. London, 1958.-. “Possibilites et limites dune theologie biblique,” RHPR, 46 (1966)

116-130.-. “La theologie de l’Ancien Testament,” Ephemerides theologicae

lovanienses, 44 (1969), 420-432.-. Grundfmgen ahtestamenthchen Theologie. Stuttgart, 1970.-. “Principe canonique et formation de l’Ancien Testament.” In Congress

Volume, Edinburgh, 1974. Supplements to v?: 28. Leiden, 1975. Pp. 101-122.-. “De la theologie de l’Ancien Testament a la theologie biblique,” RHPR,

57 (1977), 513-518.-. “Orientations actuelles de la theologie de l’Ancien Testament,” RHPR,

67 (1987), 193-198.-. “L’Ancien Testament et la Theologie,” ZAM! 100 (1988 Supplement),

268-78.Janzen, J. Gerald. “The Old Testament in ‘Process’ Perspective.” In Magnolia

Dei: The MightyActs of God: Essays on the Bible andArchaeologyin Memoryof G. Ernest Might. Ed. Frank Moore Cross et al. Garden City, NY, 1976.Pp. 480-509.

Jasper, E N. “The Relation of the Old Testament to the New,” ExpT?rn, 78(1967/68), 228-232, 267-270.

Jensen, Jergen I. “Literaturkritische Herausforderungen an die Theologie. Bib-lische Formprobleme,” EvT 41 (1981), 377-401.


Jepsen, A. “Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments: ijberlegungen zum Autbaueiner alttestamentliche Theologie.” In Dienst unter dem Wart. Festschriftftir H. Schreiner. Giitersloh, 1953. Pp. 149-163.

-. “Probleme der Auslegung des Alten Testaments,” Zeitschrift fir sys-tematische Theologie, 23 (1954), 373- 386.

-. “Theologie des AT.” Wandlungen der Formen und Ziele.” In Berichtvon der Theologie. Ed. G. Kulicke, K. Matthiae, and I? I? Sanger. Berlin,1971. Pp. 15-32.

Jones, H. 0. “Das Story-Konzept in der Theologie.” In D. Ristchl and H. 0.Jones, “Story” als Rohmaterial der Theologie. Theologische Existenz heute,192. Munich, 1976. Pp. 42-68.

Jtingel, E. “Metaphorische Wahrheit. Erwagungen zur theologischen Relevanzder Metapher als Beitrag zur Hermeneutik einer narrativen Theologie.” InMetapher. Sonderheft to EvT Munich, 1974. Pp. 71-122.

K;ihler, Martin. “Biblische Theologie.” ln RealenzyklophdiefiirprotestantischeTheologie und Kirche, III. Leipzig, 1893-1913. Pp. 192-200.

Kaiser, Gottlob Philipp Christian. Die bibhsche Theologie oder Judaismus undChristianismus nach dergmmmatisch-historischen Interpretation und nacheiner jieymiithigen Stelhtng in die kritisch-vergleichende Universal-geschichte der Religion und a!ie universale Religion. Erlangen, 1813-1821.

Kaiser, 0. Der Mensch unter dem Schicksal. St&en zur Geschichte, Theologieund Gegenwartsbedeutung der Weisheit. Beitrage zur ZAW Berlin, 1984.

Kaiser, W. C. “The Promise Theme and the Theology of Rest,” BibSac, 130(1973), 135-150.

-. “The Centre of Old Testament Theology: The Promise,” Themehos,10 (1974), l-10.

-. Toward an Old Testament Theologv. Grand Rapids, 1978.-. “Wisdom Theology and the Center of Old Testament Theology,” EvQ,

50 (1978), 132-146.Kantzer, K. S., and Gundry, S. N., eds. Perspectives on Evangelical Theology.

Grand Rapids, 1979.Kapelrud, A. S. “Die Theologie der Schopfung im Alten Testament,” ZAW 91

(19791, 159-170.Kasemann, Ernst. Das Neue Testament als Kanon. Dokumentation und

Kxitische Analyse zur gegenwartigen Diskussion. Gottingen, 1970.Katz, Peter. “The Old Testament Canon in Palestine and Alexandria.” In An

Introduction to the Canon and Masomh of the Hebrew Bible. Ed. Sid Z.Leiman. New York, 1971. Pp. 72-98.

Kautzsch, Emil E Die bleibende Bedeutung des Ahen Testaments. ‘Ribingen,1902.

-. Bibhsche ‘Jheologie des AT Tiibingen, 1911.Kayser, A. Die Theologie des AT in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwickhrng

dargestellt. Strassburg, 1886.Keller, Carl A. “Gerhard von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testament,191 Tz, 1 4

(1958) 306-309.Kelsey, David H. The Uses of Scripture in Recent 7heoZogy. Philadelphia, 1975.


Kidner, D. “Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament.” In New Perspectives onthe Old Testament. Ed. J. B. Payne. Waco, TX, 1970. Pp. 117-131.

King, Winston L. “Some Ambiguities in Biblical Theology,” Religion in Life,27 (1957-1958), 95-104.

Kittel, B. “Brevard Childs’ Development of the Canonical Approach,” JSOT 9(1980), 2-11.

Kittel, Rudolph. “Die Zukunft der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft,” ZAB! 39(1921), 84-99.

Klaaren, E. M. ‘X Critical Appreciation of Hans I+ei’s Eclipse of BiblicalNarrative,” Union Seminary Quarterly Review, 37 (1982), 283-297.

Klaiber, W. “Der eine Gott-die ganze Bibel.” In Mittelpunkt Bibel. Ulrich Fickzum 60. Geburtstag. Ed. S. Meurer. Die Bibel in der Welt, 20. Stuttgart,1983. Pp. 167-185.

Klein, G. Theologie des Wortes Gottes und die Hjpothese der Universal-geschichte. Zur Auseinandemetzung mit Woljhart Rmnenberg. Beitrage zurevangel&he Theologie, 37. Munich, 1964.

-. “ ‘Reich Gottes’ als biblischer Zentralbegriff,” EvT 30 (1970), 642-670.-. “Die Fragwtirdigkeit der Idee der Heilgeschichte.” In Spricht Gott in

der Geschichte? Fribourg / Base1 / Vienna, 1972. Pp. 95-153.Klein, H. “Leben-neues Leben. M@lichkeiten und Grenzen einer gesamt-

biblischen Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments,” EvT, 43 (1983),91-108.

Knauer, I? “Das Verhaltnis des Neuen Testaments zum Alten als historischesParadigma fiir das Verhaltnis der christlichen Botschaft zu anderen Re-ligionen und Weltanschauungen.” In QfJenbarung, geistige Realitat desMenschen-Arbeitsdokumentation eines Symposiums zum meen-barungsbegriffin Indien. Ed. G. Oberhammer. Vienna, 1974. Pp. 154-170.

Knierim, Rolf. “Cosmos and History in Israel’s Theology,” HBT, 3 (1981),59-124.

-. f’The Task of Old Testament Theology,” HBI: 6 / 1 (1984), 25-57.Knight, Douglas A. Rediscovering the Tmditions of Israel. Missoula, 1973.-. “Canon and the History of Tradition: A Critique of Brevard S. Childs’

Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture,” HB?: 2 (1980) 127-149.Knight, D. A., ed. Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament. Philadelphia,

1977.Knight, George A. E A Christian Theology of the Old Testament. London, 1959.Koch, Klaus. “Der Tod des Religionsstifters,” I&D, 8 (1962), 100-123.Kohler, L. “Alttestamentliche Theologie (Literaturbericht),” TRu, 7 (1935),

255-276; 8 (1936), 55-69, 247-284.-. Theologie des AT Tiibingen, 1936. Trans. Old Testament Theology.

London, 1957.K&rig, Eduard. “Der gegenwartige Zustand der ‘Biblischen Theologie Alten

Testaments,’ sein eigentlicher Anlass und die Wege zu seiner Ver-besserung,“Allgemeine evangelisch- httherische Kimhenzeitung, 55 (1922),242-245.

--. Theologie des ATkritisch und vergleichend dargestellt. Stuttgart, 1922.


Koole, J. L. “Het soortelijk gewicht van de historische stoffen van het OudeTestament,” Gereformeerd theologisch tijdschrijt, 65 (1965), 81-104.

-. “Ontwikkelingen op het gebied van de oudtestamentische theologie,”Gereformeerd theologisch tijdschrift, 67 (1967) 18-26.

Kort, Wesley A. Stow Text and Scripture: Literary Interests in Biblical Narra-tive. University Park / London, 1988.

Kraeling, E. The Old Testament Since the Reformation. New York, 1955.Kraus, H.-J. “Gesprach mit Martin Buber,” EvT 12 (1952-1953) 59-77.-. “Zur Geschichte des ijberlieferungsbegri in der alttestamentlichen

Wissenschaft,” Ev'l: 16 (1956), 371-387.-. Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des AT 2nd ed.

Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1969.-. Die Biblische Theologie: Ihre Geschichte und Pmblematik. Neukirchen-

Vluyn, 1970.-. “Theologie als Traditionsbildung?” EvT 36 (1976), 498-507. Repr. in

Bibhsche Theologie heute. Ed. K. Haacker. Biblisch-theologische Studien,1. Neukirchen-Vmyn, 1977. Pp. 61-73.

-. “Probleme und Perspektiven Biblischer Theologie.” In Bibhsche Theo-Jogie heute. Ed. K. Haacker. Biblisch-theologische Studien, 1. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1977. Pp. 97-124.

-. Theologie der Psalmen. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1979. Trans. Theology ofthe Psalms. Minneapolis, 1986.

Krecher, J. and H. l? Miiller. “Vergangenheitsinteresse in Mesopotamien undIsrael,” Saecuhtm, 26 (1975), 13-44.

Krentz, Edgar. fie Historical-Critical Method. Philadelphia, 1975.Kiimmel, W. G. The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of its

Problems. Nashville, 1972.-----. “Heilsgeschichte im Neuen Testament?” In Neues Testament und K&he.

Festschriftfiir R. Schnackenbuzg. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1974. Pp. 434-457.Kuske, M. Das Ahe Testament als Buch von Christus. Dietrich Bonhoeffers

Wertung und Auslegung des Alten Testaments. Gettingen, 1971.Kutsch, E. Verheissung und Gesetz. Beitrage zur ZAM! 131. Berlin, 1973.Lacheman, E. R. “The Renaissance of Biblical Theology,” JBR, 19 (1951),

71-75.Ladd, G. E. “The Search for Perspectives,” Interp, 26 (1971), 41-62.-. “Biblical Theology, Nature of.” In The International Standard Bible

Encyclopedia, I. Grand Rapids, 1979. Pp. 505-509.Lakatos, E. “Por una Teologia basada en 10s hechos,” Rivista Bibhca, 21 (1959),

83-86, 142-144, 197-200; 22 (1960), 140-145.Lambert, W. G. “Destiny and Divine Intervention in Babylonia and Israel,”

Oudtestnmentische Studien, 17 (1972) 65-72.Lampe, G. W. H. and K. J. Woollcombe. Essays on 7ypologv. SBT, 1 / 22. Lon-

don, 1957.Landes, G. M. “Biblical Exegesis in Crisis: What is the Exegetical Task in a

Theological Context?” Union Seminary Quarterly Review, 26 (1971), 273-298.


-. “The Canonical Approach to Introducing the Old Testament: Prodigyand Problems,” JSOT, 16 (1980), 32-39.

Lang, B. Die weisheithche Lehrrede. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien, 54. Stuttgart,1972.

Lang, Friedrich. “Christuszeugnis und Biblische Theologie,” EvT, 29 (1969),523-534.

Laurin, R. B., ed. Contemporary Old Testament Theologians. Valley Forge, PA,1970.

Leary, A. I? “Biblical Theology and History,” Church Quarterly Review, 157(1956), 402-414.

Leeuw, G. van der. “Overzicht van der oudtestamentische theologie,” ExOrienteLux, 14 (1955/56), 122-128.

Lehman, Chester R. Bibhcal Theology I: Old Testament. Scottdale, PA, 1971.Leiman, Sid Z. The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmua!ic and

Midmshic Evidence. Hamden, CT, 1976.Lemche, Niels Peter. “Geschichte und Heilsgeschichte. Mehrere Aspekte der

biblischen Theologie,” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, 2(1989), 114-135.

Lemke, W. E. “Revelation through History in Recent Biblical Theology,” In-terp, 36 (1982) 34-46.

Lentrieccha, E Afrer the New Criticism. London, 1980.Lerch, D. “Zur Frage nach dem Verstehen der S&rift,” ZIK 49 (1952), 350-

367.Lessing, E. “Die Bedeutung der Heilgeschichte in der okumenischen Diskus-

sion,” EvT, 44 (1984), 227-240.Levenson, Jon D. “The Theologies of Commandment in Biblical Israel,” Har-

vard Theological Review, 73 (1980), 17-33.-. Sinai and Zion: An Entry Into the Jewish Bible. Minneapolis, 1985.-. “The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism.” In

The Future of Biblical Studies: The Hebrew Scriptures. Ed. R. E. Friedmanand H. G. M. Williamson. Atlanta, 1987. Pp. 19-60.

-. “Why Jews Are Not Interested in Biblical Theology.” In Jewish Per-spectives on Ancient Israel. Ed. J. Neusner, B. A. Levine, and E. S. Frerichs.Philadelphia, 1987. Pp. 281-307.

-. Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of DivineOmnipotence. San fiancisco, 1988.

-. “The Eighth Principle of Judaism and the Literary Simultaneity ofScripture,” JR, 68 (1988), 205-225.

Levine, B. A. “Priestly Writers.” In IDB Supplement. Nashville, 1976. Pp.683-687.

Licht, J. Storytelhng in the Bible. Jerusalem, 1978.Liedke, G. “Die Selbstoffenbarung der Schiipfung,” Evangehsche Kommentar,

8 (1975) 398-400.Lindbeck, George. “Scripture, Consensus, and Community.” In Biblical Inter-

pretation in Crisis: The Ratzinger Conference on Bible and Church. Ed.Richard J. Neuhaus. Encounter Series, 9. Grand Rapids, 1989. Pp. 74-101.


Lindblom, J. “Zur &age der Eigenart der alttestamentlichen Religion.” InWerden und Wesen des AZten Testaments. Ed. J. Hempel. BZAW, 66. Berlin,1936. Pp. 128-137.

-. “Vad innebti en ‘teologisk’ syn pa Gamla Testamentet?” Svensk Teol-ogisk Kvartalskrift, 37 (1961), 73-91.

-. The Bible: A Modern Understanding. Philadelphia, 1973.Lohfink, N. Great Themes from the Old Testament. Chicago, 1982.-. “Die Bibel: Biicherei und Buch,: Deutsche Akademie fiir Spmche und

Dichtung. Jahrbuch 1983 (Heidelberg, 1984), 50-64.Lohse, E. “Die Einheit des Neuen Testaments als theologisches Problem,” EvT

35 (1975), 139-154.Lonergan, Bernard J. E Method in Theology. New York, 1972.Long, Burke 0. and George W. Coats, eds. Canon andAuthority: Essays in Old

Testament Religion and Theology. Philadelphia, 1977.Longman, Tremper III. Litemry Approaches to Biblical Interpretation. Founda-

tions of Contemporary Interpretation, vol. 3. Grand Rapids, 1987.timing, Inge. “Kanon im Kanon.” Zum dogmatischen Grundlagenproblem

des neutestamentlichen Kanons. Munich, 1972.Loretz, 0. “Israel und sein Gottesbund. Die Theologie des AT auf neuen

Wegen,” Wart und Wahrheit, 15 (1960), 85-92.-. Die Wahrheit der Bibel. fieiburg im Breisgau, 1964.Lubsczyk, H. “Die Einheit der S&rift. Zur hermeneutischen Relevanz des

Urbekenntnisses im Alten und Neuen Testament.” In Spienter Ordinare.Festgabefiir Erich Kleineidam. Leipzig, 1969. Pp. 73-104.

-. Die Einheit der Schrif. Gesammelte Aufsbtze. Leipzig, 1989.Luck, U. Welte$ahmng und Glaube als Grundpmblem biblischer Theologie.

Theologische Existenz heute, 191. Munich, 1976.Luz, U. “Einheit und Vielfalt neutestamentlicher Theologien.” In Die Mitte

des Neuen Testaments. Einheit und melfalt neutestamentlicher Theologie.Festschrif@ E. Schweizer. Gettingen, 1983. Pp. 142-161.

Lys, D. The Meaning of the Old Testament. Nashville, 1967.Maag, V “Historische oder ausserhistorische Begriindung alttestamentlicher

Theologie,” Schweizer Theologische Umschau, 29 (1959), 6-18.Mack, B. L. “Wisdom, Myth and Mythology,” Interp, 24 (1970), 46-60.Mack, R. “Basic Aspects of Revelation in the Old Testament,” Ghana Bulletin

of Theoloe, 4 / 8 (1975), 13-23.MacKenzie, R. A. I? “The Concept of Biblical Theology,” Catholic Theological

Society of America: Proceedings, 10 (1955), 48-73.-. “The Concept of Biblical Theology,” 7Today 4 (1956), 131-135.-. I%h and History in the Old Testament. Minneapolis, 1963.Maier, G. Das Ende derhistorisch-kritischen Methode. Wuppertal, 1974. Trans.

The End of the Historical-Critical Method. St. Louis, 1977.- , “Einer biblischen Hermeneutik entgegen? Zum Gespriich mit

P. Stuhlmacher und H. Lindner,” Theologische Beittige, 8 (1977), 148-160.Malevez, L. “Les dimensions de l’histoire du salut,” NouveUe revue th&

ologique, 86 (1964), 561-578.


Maly, E. H. “The Nature of Biblical History,” 7&e Bible Today, 1 (1962),278-285.

Mamie, Pierre. “Peut-on Bcrire une ‘Theologie de 1’Ancien Testament’?”Novum Vem, 42 (1967), 298-303.

Marbiick, J. Weisheit im Wandel. Bonner Biblische Beitrlge, 37. Bonn, 1971.Marsh, John. The Fulness of Time. London, 1952.Martens, E. A. “Tackling Old Testament Theology,” JETS, 20 (1977). 123-132.-. God’s Design:A Focus on Old Testament Theology. Grand Rapids, 1981

(copublished in Great Britain as Plot and Purpose in the Old Testament.Leicester, 1981).

Martin-Achard, Robert. “Les voies de la theologie de I’Ancien Testament,”Revue de theologie et de philosophic, 9 (1959), 217-226.

---. Appmche de l’Xncien Testament. NeuchPtel, 1962.-. “Remarques sur la signification theeologique de la creation selon

FArmien Testament,” RHPR, 52 (1972), 3-11.-. “La theologie de I’Ancien Testament apres les travaux de G. von Rad,”

Etudes theologiques et religieuses, 47 (1972), 219-226.-. “Old Testament Theologies and Faith Confessions,” Theology Digest,

33 / 1 (1986) 145-148.Mattioli, Anselmo. Dio e l’uomo nella Bibbia d’lsraele. Teologia dell’Antico

Testamento. Casale Monferrato, 1981.Mauser, U. Gottesbild und Menschwerdung. Eine Untersuchung zur Einheit

des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Tiibingen, 1971.-. “Eis Theos und Monos Theos in Biblischer Theologie.” In Einheit und

vierfalt Bibhscher Theologie. Ed. I. Baldermann et al. Jahrbuch fur Bib-lische Theologie, 1. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1986. Pp. 71-87.

Mayo, S. M. The Relevance of the Old Testamentfor the Christian Faith: BiblicalTheology and Interpretative Methodology Washington, D.C., 1982.

Mays, James L. “Exegesis as a Theological Discipline.” Inaugural addressdelivered April 29, 1969. Richmond, VA: Union Theological Seminary,1960.

-. “Historical and Canonical: Recent Discussion about the Old Testamentand Christian Faith.” In Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God: Essays onthe Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest wright. Ed. Frank MooreCross et al. Garden City, NY, 1976. Pp. 510-528.

McCarthy, D. J. ??eaty and Covenant. 2nd ed. AnBib, 21A. Rome, 1978.McCasland, S. Vernon. “The Unity of the Scriptures,” JBL, 73 (1954), l-10.McComiskey, Thomas E. The Covenant of Promise: A Theology of Old Testa-

ment Covenants. Grand Rapids, 1985.McConnell, E, ed. The Bible and the Narrative Tradition. New York, 1986.McConville, J. Gordon. “The Shadow of the Curse: A ‘Key’ to Old Testament

Theology,” Evangel, 3 / 1 (1985), 2-5.McEvenue, S. E. “The Old Testament, Scripture or Theology?” Znterp, 35

(1981) 229-242.M&me, W. Prophets and W&e Men. SBT, 44. London, 1965.-. “Tradition as a Theological Concept.” In God, Secularization and


History: Essays in Memory of Ronald Gregor Smith. Ed. E. T. Long. Colum-bia, SC, 1974. Pp. 44-59.

McKenzie, John L. “God and Nature in the Old Testament,” CBQ, 14 (1952),18-39, 124-145.

-. The Two-Edged Sword: an Interpretation of the Old Testament. Mil-waukee, 1955.

-. “The Task of Biblical Theology,” The Voice of St. Mary’s Seminaly, 36(1959). 7-9, 26-27.

-. Myths and Realities: Studies in Biblical Theology. Milwaukee, 1963.-. A Theology of the Old Testament. Garden City, NY, 1974.M&night, Edgar V. Meaning in T&: The Historical Shaping of Narrative

Hermeneutics. Philadelphia, 1978.-. Post-Modern Use of the Bible: The Emergence of Reader-Oriented

Criticism. Nashville, 1988.Merk, 0. Bibhsche Tbeologie des Neuen Testaments in ihrer Anfangszeit. Mar-

burg, 1970.Merk, 0. “Biblische Theologie II. Neues Testaments.” In Theologische Re-

alenzyklopiidie, VI. Ed. G. Krause and G. Miiller. Berlin/New York, 1980.Pp. 455-477.

Metz, J. B. “A Short Apology of Narrative,” Concihum, 5 / 9 (1973), 84-96.Mildenberger, E Gottes Tat im Wort. Erwagungen zur ahtestamentlichen Her-

meneutik als Fmge nach der Einheit der Geschichte. Giitersloh, 1964.-. Die halbe Wahrheit oder die ganze Schrift. Miinchen, 1967.-. “Texte-oder die S&rift?” Z’IK 66 (1969), 192- 209.-. “Systematisch-theologische Randbemerkungen zur Diskussion urn

eine Biblische Theologie.” In Zugang zur Theologie. Fundamentahheolo-gische Be&age. Festschrif ftir W! Joest. Gottingen, 1979. Pp. 11-32.

Minear, I? S. “Wanted: A Biblical Theology,” r?bday 1 (1944) 47-58.Minissale, A. “La ‘Teologia’ dellAntic Testamento,” Rivista del clero itahano,

60 (1979’) 179-186.Miskotte, K. H. “Das Problem der theologischen Exegese.” In Theologische

Aufsitze. Festschrijtfir K. Barth. Munich, 1936. Pp. 51-77.. Wenn die Getter schweigen. Munich, 1963. Trans. When the Gods Are

Silent. London, 1967.Moeller, Wilhelm and Hans. Bibhsche TAT Zwickau, 1938.Mom&&no, A. “Time in Ancient Historiography.” In History and Concept of

Time. History and Theory. Supplement, 6. 1966. Pp. l-23. Repr. inA. Momigliano, Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiogmphy Middle-town, CT, 1977. Pp. 161-204.

Morgan, Robert. The Nature of New Testament Theology London, 1973.Morgan, Robert with John Barton. Biblical Interpretation. Oxford I New York,

1988.Mowinckel, Sigmund. Prophecy and T?aa!ition: The Prophetic Books in the

. Light of the Study of the Growth and History of the Tradition. Avhandlingerutgitt av det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi. Oslo, 1946.

-. The Old Testament as Word of God. Nashville, 1959.


Muilenburg, James D. “The Return to Old Testament Theology.” In Christian-ity and the Contemporary Scene. Ed. R. C. Miller and H. H. Shires. NewYork, 1943. Pp. 30-44.

Miiller, P-G. ‘Altes Testament, Israel und das Judentum in der TheologieRudolf Bultmanns.” In Kontinuitat und Einheit. Festschrift ftir B Mussner.Fribourg / Base1 /Vienna, 1981. Pp. 439-472.

Mtiller-Fahrenholz, G. Heilsgeschichten ztischen IdeoZogie und Prophetie. Fri-bourg, 1974. Pp. 16Qff.

Murphy, R. E. “The Relationship between the Testaments,” CBQ, -26 (1964)349-359.

---. “Assumptions and Problems in Old Testament Wisdom Research,”CBQ 29 (1967), 407-418.

-. “Eschatoldgy and the Old Testament,” Continuum, 7 (1969-1970),583-593.- “Christian Understanding of the Old Testament,” ‘Ideology Digest, 18

(lQ;O), 321-332.-. “The Old Testament as Scripture,” JSOT 16 (1980), 40-44.Murrel, Nathaniel S. “James Barr’s Critique of Biblical Theology: A Critical

Analysis.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Drew University, 1988.Muschalek, G. and A. Gamper. “Offenbarung in Geschichte,” Zeitschrift fiir

kathohsche Tbeologie, 86 (1964), 180-196.Nesbit, W. G. ‘A Study of Methodology in Contemporary Old Testament

Theologies.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Marquette University, 1969.Nicholson, Ernest W. Deuteronomy and Tmdition. Philadelphia, 1967.-. Exodus and Sinai in History and Tmdition. Richmond, 1973.-. God and His People: Covenant and ‘theology in the Old Testament.

Oxford, 1986.Nielsen, E. “Det gamle Testamente.” In TeoJogien og dens fag. Ed. B. Noack.

Copenhagen, 1960. Pp. 13-42.Nineham, D. E. The Church’s Use of the Bible. London, 1963.

“The Use of the Bible in Modern Theology,” Bulletin of the JohnRylonds Library, 52 (1969), 178-199.

North, C. R. “Old Testament Theology and the History of Hebrew Religion,”SE 2 (1949), 113- 126.

Noth, Martin. iiberliefenmgsgeschichtlichen Studien: Die sammelnden und bear-beitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament. 1941. Repr. Iiibingen, 1967.

-. “Die Vergegenwartigung des Alten Testaments in der Verkiindigung,”EvT 12 (1952-1953), 6-17. Trans. “The ‘Re-presentation’ of the Old Testa-ment in Proclamation,” Interp, 15 (1961), 50-60.

The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies. Philadelphia, 1967.-. A History of Pentateuchal Tmditions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1972.O’Doherty, E. “The Unity of the Bible,” The Bible Today, 1 (1962), 53-57.Obayashi, H. “Pannenberg and Troeltsch: History and Religion,” JAAR, 38.

(1970) 401-419.Oden, Robert A. The Bible Without Theology: The Theological Tradition and

Alternatives to It. San Francisco, 1987.


Oehler, G. E Prolegomena zur Theologie des AT Stuttgart, 1845.-. lneologie des AT 2 ~01s. Stuttgart, 1873-1874. Trans. Theology of the

Old Testament. New York, 1883.Oeming, Manfred. “Bedeutung uud Funktionen von ‘Fiktionen’ in der alttesta-

me&lichen Geschichtsschreibung,” EvT 44 (1984), 254-266.-. “Biblische Theologie-was folgt daraus ftir die Auslegung des Alten

Testaments?” Evangehsche Ezziehung, 37 (1985), 233-243.7 Gesamtbiblische Theologien der Gegenwart. Das Verhiiltnis von AT und

NTm der hermeneutischen Diskussion seit Gerhard von Rad. Stuttgart, 1985.-. “Unitas Scripturae? Eine Problemskizze.” In Einheit und Kelfalt Bib-

lischer Theologie. Ed. I. Baldermann et al. Jahrbuch fiir Biblische Theolo-pie, 1. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1986. Pp. 48-70.

Ollenburger, Ben C. “Biblical Theology: Situating the Discipline.” In Under-standing the Word of God: Essays in Honor of Bernhard W Anderson. Ed.James T. Butler, Edgar W. Conrad, and Ben C. Ollenburger. Sheffield, 1985.Pp. 37-62.

-. “What Krister Stendahl ‘Meant’-A Normative Critique of ‘Descrip-tive Biblical Theology,“’ HBT, 8 / 1 (1986), 61-98.

Ollenburger, Ben C., Elmer A. Martens, and Gerhard E Hasel, eds. The Flower-ing of Old Testament Theology: A Reader in Twentieth Century Old Testa-ment Theology, Winona Lake, IN, 1991.

Orr, James. The Problem of the Old Testament Considered with Reference toRecent Criticism. London I New York, 1906.

Osborne, G. R. “New Testament Theology.” In Evangelical Dictionary of The-olo@ Ed. Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids, 1984. Pp. 768-773.

Osswald, E. “Theologie des AT-eine bleidende Aufgabe alttestamentlicherWissenschaft,” ZZZ, 99 (1974) 641-658.

-. “Das Problem der ‘Mitte’ des Alten Testaments,” Amtsblatt d. E.-Luth.Kimhe in Thiiringen, 30 (1977), 192-201.

&tborn, G. Yahwe’s Words and Deeds: A Preliminary Study into the OldTestament Presentation of History. Uppsala Universitets _&&rift, 1951, 7.Uppsala / Wiesbaden, 1951.

Ott, H. Geschichte und Heilsgeschichte in der Theologie Rudolf Bultmanns.Tiibingen, 1955.

Otto, E. “Erwagungen zu den Prolegomena einer Theologie des AT,” Kaims,19 (1977), 53-72.

-. “Hat Max Webers Religionssoziologie des antiken Judentums Be-deutung fur eine Theologie des AT?’ ZAW 94 (1982) 187-203.

Pannenberg, W. “Kerygma und Geschichte.” In Studien zur Theologie desahtestamenthchen iiberheferungen. Ed. R. Rendtorff and K. Koch. Neukir-then, 1961. Pp. 124-140.- Grundfmgen systematischer Theologie. Gottingen, 1968.‘Jesus-God and Man. Philadelphia, 1968.-. Basic Questions in Theology 2 ~01s. Philadelphia, 1979, 1971.-. “Biblische Theologie.” In Theologie als Wksenschaft Stuttgart, 1973.

Pp. 384-392.


-. “Glaube und Wirklichkeit im Denken Gerhard von Rads.” In H. W.Wolff, R. Rendtorff, and W. Pannenberg, Gerhard von Rad. Seine Be-deutungfiir die Theologie. Drei Reden. Munich, 1973. Pp. 37-54.

Pannenberg, W., ed. OaG. 2nd ed. KuD, Beihefte 1. Giittingen, 1963. ‘Bans.Revelation as History London, 1969.

I%mikar, R. “Le temps circulaire: temporisation et temporalite.” In E. Castelliet al. Temporahta e fienazione. Archivio di Filosofia. Padua, 1975. Pp.207-246.

Payne, J. Barton. The Theology of the Older Testament. Grand Rapids, 1962.Pepin, J. Mythe et aflegorie. Paris, 1958.Perlitt, Lothar. Bundestbeologie im Ahen Testament. WMANT, 36. Neukirchen-

Vluyn, 1969.Petersen, C. Mythos im Alten Testament. BZAW, 157. Berlin, 1982.Pfeiffer, R. H. “Facts and Faith in Biblical History,” JBL, 70 (1951), 1-14.Phythian-Adams, W. J. T. “The Foundations of Biblical Theology,” Church

Quarterly Review, 135 (1942), l-42.Piper, Otto A. “Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology,” JBR, 25 (1957)

106-111.Pittenger, W. N. “Biblical Religion and Biblical Theology,” JBR, 13 (1945),

179-183.Ploeg, J. van der. “Une ‘Theologie de FAT’ est-elle possible?” Ephemer ides

theologicae lovanienses, 38 (1962), 417-434.Pokorny, F! “Probleme biblische Theologie,” ‘ILZ, 106 (1981) 1-8.Polley, M. E. “H. Wheeler Robinson and the Problem of Organizing an Old

Testament Theology.” In The Use of the Old Testament in the New andOther Essays. Ed. James M. Efird. Durham, 1972. Pp. 149-169.

Porteous, N. W. “Towards a Theology of the Old Testament,” Sfl 1 (1948),136-149.

-. “Old Testament Theology.” In 7%e Old Testament and Modern StudyEd. H. H. Rowley. London, 1951. Pp. 311-345.

-. “Actualisation and the Prophetic Criticism of the Cult.” In Traditionund Situation. Festschrijttfiir Artur Weiser. Ed. E. Wiirthwein and 0. Kaiser.Giittingen, 1963. Repr. in Living the Mystery: Collected Essays. Oxford,1967. Pp. 127-141.

-. Living the Mystery: Collected Essays. Oxford, 1967.-. “Old Testament and History,” ASIT, 8 (1972), 21-77.Porter, E C. “Crucial Problems in Biblical Theology,” JR, 1 (1921), 78-81.Preus, C. “The Contemporary Relevance of von Hofmanns Hermeneutical

Principles,” Interp, 4 (1950), 311-321.Preuss, H. D. “Das Alte Testament in der Verktindigung der Kirche,” Deutsches

@rrerblatt, 68 (1968) 73-79.-. Jahweglaube und Zukunftserwartung. Beitrlge zur Wissenschaft vom

Alten uud Neuen Testament, 87. Stuttgart, 1968.-. “Erwagungen zum theologischen Ort alttestamentlicher Weisheitslit-

eratur,” EvT 30 (1970) 393-417.


-. “Das Alte Testament im Rahmen der Theologie als Kirchlicher Wis-senschaft,” Deutsches pfarrerblatt, 72 (1972), 356-360.

-. ‘Wttestamentliche Weisheit in christlicher Theologie?” BibliothecaEphemeridum Tbeologicarum Lovaniensium, 33 (1974), 165-181.

-. Das Ah% Testament in christlicher Pzedigt. Stuttgart / Berlin / Wln /Mainz, 1984.

Priest, John E “Where is Wisdom to be Placed?” JBR, 31 (1963), 275-282.Procksch, Otto. “Pneumatische Exegese,” Christentum und WXssenschafI, 1

(1925), 145ff.-. TAT Gtitersloh, 1949.Prussner, Frederick C. “The Covenant of David and the Problem of Unity in

the Old Testament Theology.” In Transitions in Biblical Scholarship. Ed.J. C. Rylaarsdam. Chicago, 1968. Pp. 17-41.

Prussner, Frederick C. ‘X Methodology for Old Testament Theology.” Unpub-lished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1953.

Rad, Gerhard von. “Weiser: Glaube und Geschichte im Ahen Testament,”Christentum und WXssenschaft, 8 (1932), 37.

-. Die Priestemchriftim Hexateuch litemrisch untersucht und theologischgewertet. Stuttgart, 1934.

-. “Das Christuszeugnis des Alten Testaments: Eine Auseinander-setzung mit Wilhelm Vischers gleichnamigen Buch,” TBI, 14 (1935),249-254.

-. “Gesetz und Evangelium im Alten Testament. Gedanken zu dem Buchvon E. Hirsch: Das Alte Testament und die Pzedigt des Evangeliums,” TBl,16 (1937), 41-47.

-. “Grundprobleme einer biblischen Theologie des AT,” 7ZZ, 68 (1943),225-234.

-. “Kritische Vorarbeiten zu einer Theologie des AT.” In fieologie undLiturgie. Fd. L. Hennig. Kassel, 1952. Pp. 11-34.

-. “Verheissung. Zum gleichnamigen Buch Wedrich Baumgartels,” Ev?:13 (1953), 406- 413.

-. Theologie des AT 2 ~01s. Munich, 1957, 1960. Trans. Old TestamentTheoJog4: 2 ~01s. Edinburgh /New York, 1965.

-. ‘Ancient Word and Living Word: The Preaching of Deuteronomy andOur Preaching,” Interp, 15 (1961), 3-13.

-. “Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament,” Znterp, 15 (1961),174-192. Repr. in EOTH, pp. 17-39.

-. “Offene Fragen im Umkreis einer Theologie des AT,” 7Z2, 88 (1963),401-416.

-. “Antwort auf Conzehnanns nagen,” EvT, 24 (1964), 388-394.-. “The Deutenmomic Theology of History in I and II Kings.” In 7&e

Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. New York, 1966. Pp. 205-221.-. “The Beginnings of Historical Writing in Ancient Israel.” In ‘Z7ie

Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. New York, 1966. Pp. 166-204.-. The Pmblem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. New York, 1966.


OriginaIly published as Das formgeschichtbche Problem des Hexateuchs.Stuttgart, 1938.

-. Weisheit in Israel. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1970. Trans. Wisdom in Israel.London /Nashville, 1972.

-.%out Exegesis and Preaching.” In Biblical Interpretations in Preach-ing. Nashville, 1977. Pp. 11-18.

Rahner, K. “Weltgeschichte und Heilsgeschichte.” In Schriften zur Theologie,V. 2nd ed. Einsiedeln, 1964.

-. “Bible, Biblical Theology.” In Sacmmentum Mundi, I. Ed. K. Rahner.London, 1968, Pp. 171-176.

-. “Old Testament Theology.” In Sacmmentum Muna!i, IV. London, 1969.Pp. 186-190.

-. “The Old Testament and Christian Dogmatic Theology.” In TheologicalInvestigations, XVI: Experience of the Spirit: Source of Theology London INew York, 1979. Pp. 177-190.

Raitt, T. M. “Horizontal Revelation,” Religion in fife, 47 (1978), 423-429.Ramlot, “Une decade de theologie biblique,” Revue thomiste, 64 (1964), 65-96;

65 (1965). 95-135.Ratzinger, Joseph. “Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: On the Question of the

Foundations and Approaches in Exegesis.” In Biblical Interpretation inCrisis: The Ratzinger Conference on Bible and Church, ed. Richard J.Neuhaus. Encounter Series, 9. Grand Rapids, 1989. Pp. l-13.

Rendtorff, Rolf. “ ‘Offenbarung’ im Alten Testament,” TIZ, 85 (1960), 833-838.-. “Hermeneutics des Alten Testaments als Frage nach der Geschichte,”

Z?‘K 57 (1960). 27-40.-. “Die Offenbarungsvorstellungen im Alten Israel.” In OaG. Ed. W. Pan-

nenberg. 2nd ed. KuD, Beiheft 1. Gottingen, 1961. Pp. 21-41. Trans. “TheConcept of Revelation in Ancient Israel.” In Revelation as History. Ed.W. Pannenberg. London, 1969. Pp. 23-53.

-. “Geschichte und Wort im Alten Testament,” Evl: 22 (1962), 621-649.-. ‘Alttestamentliche Theologie und israelitisch-jtidische Religions-

geschichte.” In Zwischenstation. Festschrif ftir Karl Kupisch zum 60. Ge-burtstag. Ed. Helmut Gollwitzer and J. Hoppe. Munich, 1963. Pp. 208-222.

-. “Die Entstehung der israelitischen Religion als religions-geschichtliches und theologisches Problem,” 7’LZ. 88 (1963), 735-746.

-. “Der ‘Jahwist’ als Theologe? Zum Dilemma der Pentateuchkritik.” InCongress Volume: Edinburgh, 1974. Supplements to v?: 28. Leiden, 1975.Pp. 158-166. Trans. “The ‘Yahwist’ as Theologian? The Dilemma of Pen-tateuchal Criticism,” JSOT 3 (1977), 2-10.

-. Das iiberlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch. BZAW, 147.Berlin / New York, 1977.

-. “I principali problemi di una teologia dell’Antico Testamento,” Pmt-estantesimo, 35 (1980) 193-206.

. “Zur Bedeutung des Kanons ftir eine Theologie des AT.” In “Wennnicht jetzt-warm dann?" Aufsiitze ftir Hans-Joachim Kmus zum 65. Ge-burtstag. Ed. H.-G. Geyer et al. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1983. Pp. 3-11.


- “Must ‘Biblical Theology’ be Christian Theology?” Bible Review, 4(1988), 40-43.

-. “Covenant’ as a Structuring Concept in Genesis and Exodus,” JBL,108 (1989), 385-393.

-. “Theologie des AT-Uberlegungen zu einem Neuansatz,” NederduitseGemformeerde Teologiese ?ydskr$ 30 (1989), 132-142.

Rendtorff, Rolf and Koch, Klaus, eds. Studien zur Theologie der alttestament-lichen iiberlieferungen. Festschrifi fur Gerhard von Rad zum 60. Geburt-stag. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1961.

Reventlow, H. Graf. “Grundfragen der alttestamentlichen Theologie im Lichteder neueren deutschen Forschung,” 7ZZ, 17 (1961), 81-98.

-. “Die Auffassung vom Alten Testament bei Hermann Samuel Reimarusund Gotthold Ephraim Lessing,” Ev?: 25 (1965), 429-448.

-. Rechtfertigung im Horizont des Alten Testaments. Beitrage zur evan-gelischen Theologie, 58. Munich, 1971. Pp. 41-66.

-. “Die Eigenart des Jahweglaubens als geschichtliches und theolo-gisches Problem,” KuD, 20 (19741, 199-217.-. “Basic Problems in Old Testament Theology,” JSOT 11 (1979), 2-22.-. “Der Konflikt zwischen Exegese und Dogmatik. Wilhelm Vischers

Ringen urn den ‘Christus in Alten Testament.“’ In Textgemass. Aufsiitzeund Beitrage zur Hermeneutik des Ahen Testaments. Festschrift fiir ErnestWiirthwein zum 70. Gebuztstag. Ed. A. H. G. Gunneweg and 0. Kaiser.Gottingen, 1979. Pp. 110-122.-. “Richard Simon und seine Bedeutung ftir die kritische Erforschung

der Bibel.” In Historische Kn’tik in der Theologie: Be&age zu ihrerGeschichte. Ed. Georg Schwaiger. Giittingen, 1980. Pp. 11-36.

-. Hauptprobleme der alttestamentlichen Theologie im 20. Jahrhundert.Ertrage der Forschung, 173. Darmstadt, 1983. Trans. Problems of Old Testa-ment Theology in the Twentieth Century. Philadelphia, 1985.

-. Hauptpmbleme der Biblischen Theologie im 20. Jahrhundert. Ertriigeder Forschung, 203. Darmstadt, 1983. Trans. Problems of Biblical Theologyin the Twentieth Century Philadelphia, 1986.

-. The Authority of the Bible and the Rise of the Modern World. London/Philadelphia, 1984.

-. “Biblische Theologie auf historisch-kritischer Grundlage. Zu einemneuen Buch von Manfred Oeming.” In Einheit und vielfalt BiblischerTheologie. Ed. I. Baldermann et al. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1986. Pp. 201-209.

-. “Zur Theologie des AT,” 7%. 52 (1987), 237.Rice, C. “The Preacher as Storyteller,” Union Seminary Quarterly Review, 31

(1976), 182-197.Richardson, A. “The Nature of Biblical Theology,” fieologv, 39 (1939), 166-176.Ridderbos, N. H. “Het Oude Testament en de geschiedenis,” Gereformeerd

theologisch tijdschrif, 57 (1957), 112-120.Riehm, E. Ahtestamenthche ‘tbeologie. Halle, 1889.Ritschl, Dietrich. “Johann Salomo Semler: The Rise of the Historical-Critical

Method in Eighteenth-Century Theology on the Continent.” In Intmduc-


tion to Modernity:A Symposium on Eighteenth-Centurylltought. Ed. RobertMollenauer. Austin, 1965. Pp. 107-133.

-. “ ‘Story’ als Rohmaterial der Theologie.” In D. Ritschl and H. 0. Jones,“Story” als Rohmaterial der Tbeologie. Theologische Existenz heute, 192.Munich, 1976. Pp. 22-24.

Ritschl, D. and H. 0. Jones. “Story” als Rohmaterial der Theologie. Theolo-gische Existenz heute, 192. Munich, 1976.

Roberts, J. J. M. “Myth versus History: Relaying the Comparative Founda-tions,” CBQ, 36 (1976) 1-13.

Robertson, David. 7?re Old Testament and the Litemry Critic. Philadelphia,1977.

Robertson, 0. Palmer. “The Outlook for Biblical Theology.” In Toward a The-ologvfor the Future. Ed. D. E Wells and C. H. Pinnock. Carol Stream, IL,1971. Pp. 65-91.

Robinson, H. W. Inspimtion and Revelation in the Old Testament. Oxford, 1946.Robinson, H. W. “The Theology of the Old Testament.” In Record and Rev-

elation. Ed. H. W. Robinson. Oxford, 1938. Pp. 303- 348.Robinson, James M. “Revelation as Word and as History.” In New l+ontiers in

Theologv, III: fieology as History New York, 1967. Pp. l-110.Rogerson, J. W. Mytb in Old Testament Interpretation. BZAW 134. Berlin, 1974.Riissler, D. Gesetz und Geschichte. Untersuchungen zur TheoZogie der jii-

dischen Apokalyptik und der pharistischen Ortbodoxie. WMANT, 3. 2nded. Neukirchen, 1962.

Rost, L. “Zur Theologie des AT: Eine ijbersicht,” Christenturn und Wissen-s&aft, 10 (1934), 121-124.

Rowley, H. H. The Unify ofthe Bible. London, 1953.-. The Faith of Israel: Aspects of Old Testament Thought. London, 1956.Ruler, A. A. van. 7&e Christian Church and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids,

1971.Ruppert, Lothar. “Der Jahwist-Kiinder der Heilsgeschichte.” In Worf und

Botschaft: Eine theologische und laitische Einftihrung im die Probleme desAlten Testaments. Ed. Josef Schreiner. Wiirzburg, 1967. Pp. 88-107.

Rylaarsdam, J. C. “The Problem of Faith and History in Biblical Interpreta-tion,” ]B.L, 77 (1958), 26-32.

Saeba, M. “Offenbarung in der Geschichte und als Geschichte. Bemerkungenzu einem aktuellen Thema aus alttestamentlicher Sicht,” Studia Theolo-gica, 35 (1981), 55-71.

Sanders, J. A. Torah and Canon. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972.-. “Adaptable for Life: The Nature and Function of Canon.” In Magnalia

Dei: The MightyActs of God: Essays on the Bible andAmhaeoJogyin Memoryof G. Ernest Wright. Ed. Frank Moore Cross et al. Garden City, NY, 1976.Pp. 531-560.

-. “Hermeneutics.” In IDB Supplement. Nashville, 1976. Pp. 402-407.-. “Biblical Criticism and the Bible as Canon,” Union Seminary Quarterly

Review, 32 (1977), 157-165.-. “Canonical Context and Canonical Criticism,” HBT 2 (1980), 173-197.


-. Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism. Philadelphia,1984.

-. mm Sacred Story to Sacred Text. Philadelphia, 1987.Sandys-Wunsch, John. “G. F? C. Kaiser: La theologie biblique et l’histoire des

Religions,” RHPR, 59 (1979), 391-396.-. “G. T. Zachariae’s Contributions to Biblical Theology,” ZAM! 92

(1980), 1-23.-. “Spinoza-The First Biblical Theologian,” ZAM! 93 (1981), 327-341.Sandys-Wunsch, John, and E&edge, Laurence. “J. F! Gabler and the Distinc-

tion between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology: Translation, Commentary,and Discussion of His Originality,” SE 33 (1980), 133-158.

Sauter, Gerhard. Zukunfr und Verheissung. Das Problem der Zukunft in dergegenwtiigen theologiscben und pbilosopbiscben Diskussion. Zurich IStuttgart, 1965.

Scharbert, J. “Heilsgeschichte und Heilsordnung des Alten Testaments,” Mys-terium Sal&is, 2. Pp. 1076-1144.

Scharbert, J. Was ist Heilsgescbicbte? Semana Biblica esptiola, 26. Madrid,1970.

Schedl, Claus. Zur Tbeologie des AT Dergiitiicbe Spracbvozgangin Scbiipfungund Gescbicbte. Vienna, 1986.

Schlier, Heitich. “The Meaning and Function of a Theology of the NewTestament.” In Dogmatic vs. Biblical Theology. Ed. H. Vorgrimler. Bal-timore, 1964. Pp. 88-90.

-. “Biblical and Dogmatic Theology.” In The Relevance of the NewTestament. London/New York, 1968. Pp. 26-38.

Schmid, H. H. Wesen und Gescbicbte der Weisbeit. Berlin, 1966.-. Gerecbfigkeit als Weltordnung. Beitrlge zur historichen Theologie, 40.

Tiibingen, 1968.-. “Schiipfung, Gerecht igke i t und He& ‘Sch6pfungstheologie’ als

Gesamthorizant biblischer Theologie,” ZTK, 70 (1973), l-19.-. Altorientaliscbe Welt in der alttestamentlicben Tbeologie. Se&s Auf-

s&e. Ztirich, 1974.-. “Das alttestamentliche VersMndnis von Geschichte in seinem Verhtilt-

nis zum gemeinorientalischen Denken,” WuD, 13 (1975), 9-21.-. Der sogenanntefahwist. Beobacbtungen und l+agen zur Pentateucbfor-

scbung. Ziirich, 1976.-. “Unterwegs zu einer neuen Biblischen Theologie? Anfragen an die

von H. Gese und P Stuhlmacher vorgetragenen Entwiirfe Biblischer Theo-logic.” In Bibliscbe neologie he&e. Ed. K. Haacker. Biblisch-theologischeStudien, 1. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1977. Pp. 75-95.

-. “Ich will euer Gott sein, ihr sollt mein Volk sein. Die sogenannteBundesformel und die Frage nach der Mitte des Alten Testaments.” InKirche. Festscbtifffir G. Bornkamm. ‘Iiibingen, 1980. Pp. l-25.

-. “Vielfalt und Einheit alttestamentlichen Glaubens.” In “Wenn nicbtjet&, wann dann?” Aufititze fir Hans-Joacbim Klaus zum 65. Geburtstng.Ed. H.-G. Geyer et al. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1983. Pp. 13-22.


-. “Was heisst ‘Biblische Theologie.’ ” In W?rkungen hermeneutiscberTheologie. Festscbrif fiir G. Ebeling. Zurich, 1983. Pp. 35-50.

-. “Creation, Righteousness, and Salvation: ‘Creation Theology’ as theBroad Horizon of Biblical Theology.” In Creation in the Old Testament. Ed.Bernhard W. Anderson. IRT, 6. Philadelphia /London, 1984. Pp. 102-117.

Schmidt, J. M. “Vergegenwartigung und iiberlieferung,” Ev?; 30 (1970), 169-200.Schmidt, L. “Die Einheit zwischen Altem und Neuen Testament im Streit

zwischen Friedrich Baumgartel und Gerhard von Rad,” Evl; 35 (X975),119-139.

-. “Hermeutische und biblisch-theologische Fragen.” In H. J. Boecker etal., Altes Testament. Neukirchener Arbeitsbticher. Neukirchen-Vluyn,1983. Pp. 288-307.

Schmidt, Sebastian. Collegium Biblicum in quo dicta V&tens et NovaTestamenti iuxta sierem locorum communium tbeologicorum explicantur.Argentorati, 1671; 2nd ed. 1676.

Schmidt, W. H. “‘Theologie des AT’ vor und nach Gerhard von Rad.” InVerkimdigung und Fomcbung. Beiheift zur EvT, 17. Munich, 1972. Pp. l-25.

-. Das erste Gebot. Seine Bedeutungfiir das Alte Testament. TheologischeExistenz heute, 165. Munich, 1979.

-. The Faith of the Old Testament: A History Oxford / Philadelphia, 1983.-. “Vielfalt und Einheit alttestmentlichen Glaubens. Konstruktionsver-

such an einem Pfeiler der Brticke ‘Biblische Theologie.’ ” In “Wenn nicbtjetzt, wann dann?” Aufstitze fir Hans-Joacbim Kraus zum 65. Geburtstag.Ed. H.-G. Geyer et al. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1983. Pp. 13-22.

-. “Die Frage nach der ‘Mitte’ des Alten Testaments im Spannungsfeldvon Religionsgeschichte und Theologie.” In Gott loben das ist unser Amt.Festscbriftfir D. J. Schmidt. Ed. K. Jiirgensen et al. Kiel, 1984. Pp. 55-65.

. “The Problem of the ‘Centre’ of the Old Testament in the Perspectiveof the Relationship Between History of Religion and Theology,” Old Testa-ment Essays, 4 (1986), 46-64.

Schmithals, W. “Schriftauslegung auf dem Weg zur Biblischen Theologie.Kritische Bemerkungen zu einem Buch von Peter Stulmacher,” Reformiertefircbenzeitung, 117 (1976), 282- 285.

Schmitt, R. Abscbied von der Heilsgescbicbte? Untersucbungen zum Verstand-nis der Gescbicbte im Alten Testament. Europlische Hochschulschriften,25 / 195. Frankfurt/Bern, 1982.

Schofield, J. N. Introducing Old Testament Theology Philadelphia, 1964.. “Otto Procksch.” In Contempomry Old Testament Theologians. Ed.

R. B. Laurin. Valley Forge, 1970. Pp. 91-120.Schrage, W. “Die Frage nach der Mitte und dem Kanon im Kanon des Neuen

Testaments in der neueren Diskussion.” In Recbffertigung. Festscbrift fiirE. Kasemann zum 70. Geburtstag. Ed. J. Friedrich et al. Tubingen, 1976.Pp. 415-442.

Schulz, S. Die Mitte der Scbrift. Stuttgart, 1976.Schwarzwaller, K. “Das Verhaltnis Altes Testament-Neues Testament im

Lichte der gegenwlrtigen Bestimmungen,” Ev?; 29 (1969), 281-307.


Scullion, J. J. “Recent Old Testament Theologies: Three Contributions,”Ausfmlian Biblical Review, 24 (1976), 6-17.

Seebass, H. “Der Beitrag des AT zum Entwurf einer biblischen Theologie,”WuD, 8 (1965). 20-49.

-. Bibliscbe Hermeneutik. Uni-Taschenbiicher, 199. Stuttgart, 1974.-. “Zur Ermijglichung biblischer Theologie,” Evl; 37 (1977) 591-600.-. “Biblische Theologie,” Verkindigung und Forscbung, 27 (1982),

28-45.-. Der Goit der ganzen Bibel. Bibliscbe l7reologie zur Orientiemng im

Glauben. Heiburg / Base1 /Vienna, 1982.-. “Geschichtliche Vorlaufigkeit und eschatologische Endgiiltigkeit des

biblischen Monotheismus,” Zukunftsbofiung und Heilserwartung in denmonotheistischen Religionen. Ed. A. Falaturi et al. Freiburg im Breisgau,1983. Pp. 49-80.

-. “1st biblische Theologie miiglich?” Judaica, 41 (1985), 194-206.-. “Gerechtigkeit Gottes. Zum Dialog mit Peter Stuhlmacher.” In Einheit

und Vielfalt Bibliscber Theologie. Ed. I. Baldermann et al. Jahrbuch ftirBiblische Theologie, 1. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1986. Pp. 115-134.

Seeligmarm, I. L. “Erkenntnis Gottes und historisches Bewusstsein im altenIsrael.” In Beitrage zur alttestamenflicben Theologie. Festschrij%fir W Zim-merli. Gottingen, 1977. Pp. 414-445.

Sekine, M. “Vom Verstehen der Heilsgeschichte. Das Grundproblem der alt-testamentlichen Theologie,” ZAW 75 (1963), 145-154. ,

Sellin, E. Das Alte Testament und o!ie evangeliscbe Kircbe der Gegenwart.Leipzig, 1921.

-. Alffestamentlicbe fieologie auf religionsgescbicbter Grundlage. 2~01s. Leipzig, 1933.

-. Tbeologie des AT Leipzig, 1933.Semler, Johann Salomo. Abbandlung von freier Untersucbung des Canon. 4

~01s. Halle, 1771-1775.Sheppard, Gerald T. W&dom as a Hermeneutical Construct. A Study in the

Sapientiafizing of the Old Testament. BZAW, 151. Berlin, 1980.Siedl, S. “Das Alte und das Neue Testament. Ihre Verschiedenheit und Ein-

heit,” Tbeologiscb-praktische Quarfnlschrift, 119 (19711, 314-324.Siegwalt, G. La Loi, cbemin du Sal&. Etude sur la signification de la loi de

J’Ancien Testament. Neuchatel, 1971.-. “Biblische Theologie als Begriffe und Vollzug,” KuD, 11 (1979), 254-

272.Simon, U. History and Faith in the Biblical Narrative. London, 1975.Simpson, C. A. “Professor Procksch’s Theology of the Old Testament,“Angli-

con Theological Review, 34 (1952), 116- 122.Sitarz, Eugen. Hiire Ismel! Jahwe ist einzig: Bausteine fiir eine Theologie des

AT Stuttgart, 1987.Smart, James D. “The Death and Rebirth of Old Testament Theology,” JR, 23

(1943), l-11, 124-136.-. 77re Interpretation of Scripture. London, 1961.


-. The Stmnge Silence of the Bible in the Church: A Study in Hermeneu-tics. Philadelphia, 1970.

-. ?%e Post, Present, and Future of Biblical Theology. Philadelphia, 1979.Smend, Rudolf. “J. Ph. Gablers Begriindung der biblischen Theologie,” Evl:

22 (1962), 345-367.-. “Universalismus und Partikularismus in der Alttestamentliche Theo-

logie des 19. Jahrhunderts,” Ev?; 22 (1962), 169-179.-. Elemente alttestamentlicben Gescbicbtsdenkens. T h e o l o g i s c h e

Studien, 95. Zurich, 1968.-. Die Mifte des AT Theologische Studien, 101. Zurich, 1970.-. “Heinrich Ewalds Biblische Theologie.” In Festscbrif fir Wolfgang

?hI?haas. Ed. H. W. Schiitte and F. Wintzer. Gottingen, 1974. Pp. 176-191.-. “Tradition and History: A Complex Relation.” In Tradition and Tbe-

ologvin the Old Testament. Ed. D. A. Knight. Philadelphia, 1977. Pp. 49-68(= “Uberlieferung und Geschichte. Aspekte ihres Verhaltnisses.” In Zulindition und Theologie im Alten Testament. Ed. 0. H. Steck. Biblisch-Theologische Studien, 2. Neukirchen, 1978. Pp. 9-26).

-. “Theologie des Alten Testament.” In Verifikationen. Festscbrif fiirG. Ebeling. ‘Iiibingen, 1982. Pp. 11-26.

Smith, M. “The Common Theology of the Ancient Near East,” JBL, 71 (1952),135-147.

-. “The Present State of Old Testament Studies,” JBL, 88 (1969), 19-35.Snaith, N. H. The Distinctives Ideas of the Old Testament. London, 1944.Soggin, J. A. Xlttestamentliche Glaubenszeugnisse und geschichtliche Wirk-

lichkeit,” 7Z, 17 (1961), 385-398.-. “Geschichte, Historie und Heilsgechichte,” 77Z, 89 (1964), 721ff.-. “God and History in Biblical Thought.” In J. A. Soggin, Old Testament

and Oriental Studies. Biblica et Orientalia, 29. Rome, 1975. Pp. 59-66.-. “Den gammaltestamentliga theologin efter G. von Rad,” Svensk ex-

egetiskhbok, 47 (1982), 7-20.-. “Teologia deBAntic Testament0 oggi. Dopo Gerhard von Rad,” Pmt-

estantesimo, 39 / 1 (1984), l-17.Spicq, C. “L’avenement de la Theologie Biblique,” Revue biblique, 35 (1951),

561-574.-. “ N o u v e l l e s mflexions sur la theologie biblique,” RSPT, 43 (1958),

209-219.Spina, E A. “Canonical Criticism: Childs versus Sanders.” In Interpreting

God’s Word for Today: An Inquiry into Hermeneutics from a Biblical Theo-logical Perspective. Ed. J. E. Hartley and R. L. Shelton. Anderson, IN, 1982.Pp. 165-194.

Springs, D. C. Two Old Testament Theologies: A Compamtive Evaluation of theContributions of Eicbmdt and von Rod to our Understanding of the Natureof Old Testament Tbeologv SBT, 2 / 30. Naperville, IL, 1974.

Stade, Bernhard. “Uber die Aufgaben der biblischen Theologie des AT,” ZIK,3 (1893) 31-51.

-. Bibliscbe Tbeologie des AT 2 ~01s. Bibingen, 1905, 1911.


Staerk, Willy, “Religionsgeschichte und Religionsphilosophie in ihrer Be-deutung fiir die biblische Theologie des AT,” Znc 4 (1923), 289-300.

Steck, K. G. Die Idee der Heilsgescbicbte. Theologische Studien, 56. Zurich,1959.

Steck, Odil Hannes. “Theological Streams of Tradition.” In Tradition andZbeologv in the Old Testament. Ed. D. A. Knight. Philadelphia, 1977. Pp.183-214 (= “Stromungen theologischer Tradition im Alten Israel.” In ZuTmdition und Tbeologie im Alten Testament. Ed. 0. H. Steck. Biblisch-theologische Studien, 2. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1978. Pp. 27-56).

Steck, Odil Hannes, and Barth, Hermann. Exegese des Alten Testaments.Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1971.

Steimle, E. “Preaching and the Biblical Story of Good and Evil,” Union Sem-inary Quarterly Review, 31 (1976), 198-211.

Stek, John H. “Biblical Typology Yesterday and Today,” Calvin TheologicalJournal, 5 (1970), 133-162.

Stendahl, Krister. “Biblical Theology, Contemporary.” In IDB, I. Pp. 418-432.-. “Method in the Study of Biblical Theology.” In The Bible in Modern

Scholarship. Ed. J. I? Hyatt. Nashville, 1965. Pp. 266-273.-. “The Bible as a Classic and the Bible as Holy Scripture,” JBL, 103

(1984), 3-10.-. “Biblical Theology: A Program.” In Meanings: 7be Bible as Document

and as Guide. Philadelphia, 1984. Pp. 11-44.-. Meanings: The Bible as Document and as Guide. Philadelphia, 1984.Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narmtive. Bloomington, 1987.Steuernagel, Carl. “Alttestamentliche Theologie und alttestamentliche Re-

ligionsgeschichte.” In Vom Alten Testament. Festscbrift fiir K. Marti. Ed.K. Budde. BZAW, 41. Giessen, 1925. Pp. 266-273.

Stoebe, H.-J. “Das Verhaltnis von Offenbarung und religiljser Aussage imAhen Testament,” Acta Tropica, 21 (1964), 400-414.

-. “Uberlegungen zur Theologie des AT.” In Gottes Won und Got&s Land.H.-W Herfzbezg zum 70. Geburtstag. Ed. H. Graf Reventlow. Gottingen,1965. Pp. 200-220.

Stolz, E “Monotheism in Israel.” In Monofheismus im A&en Testament und seinerUmweft. Ed. 0. Keel. Biblische Beitrage, 14. Fiibourg, 1980. Pp. 143-184.

Strange, John. “Heilsgeschichte und Geschichte. Ein Aspekt der biblischenTheologie,” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, 2 (1989), 100-113.

-. “Replik an Niels Peter Lemche,” Scandinavian Journal of the OldTestament, 2 (1989), 136-139.

Strauss, H. “Theologie des AT als Bestandteil einer biblischen Theologie,”Ev?: 45 (1985), 20-29.

Strecker, G. “ ‘Biblische Theologie.’ Kritische Bemerkungen zu den Entwiirfenvon Hartmut Gese und Peter Stuhlmacher.” In Kircbe. Festscbriff fiirG. Bornkamm. Tubingen, 1980. Pp. 425-445.

Stroup, G. W. The Promise of Narrative Theology. Atlanta, 1981.Stuhlmacher, I? Gerecbtigkeit Gottes bei Paulus. 2nd ed. FRLANT, 95. Gottin-

gen, 1966.


-. Sclmftauslegung auf dem Wege zur bibliscben Theologie. Gottingen,1975. Trans. Historical Criticism and Theological Interpretation of Scripture. Philadelphia, 1977.

-. “Biblische Theologie und Kritische Exegese,” Theologiscbe Beitrage,8 (1977), 88-90.

-. “Zum Thema: Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments.” In Bib-liscbe Theologie heute. Ed. K. Haacker. Biblisch-theologische Studien, 1.Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1977. Pp. 25-60.

-. “Das Gesetz als Thema biblischer Theologie,” _ZTK 75 (1978). 251-280.-. Vom Versteben des Neuen Testaments: Eine Hermeneutrk. Giittingen:

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979.‘ “. . . . in verrosteten Angeln,” ZTK, 77 (1980), 222-238.-. “Biblische Theologie als Weg der Erkenntnis Gottes. Zum Buch von

Horst Seebass: Der Gott der ganzen Bibel.” In Einheit und Welfalt BibliscberTheologie. Ed. I. Baldermann et al. Jahrbuch fur Biblische Theologie, 1.Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1986. Pp. 91-114.

Stuhlmueller, C. “The Influence of Oral Tradition upon Exegesis and theSenses of Scripture,” CBQ, 20 (1958) 299-326.

Syreeni, Kari. “Teologia, hermeneutiikka ja ‘toisenlainen hermeneutiikka’,”Teologinen aikakauskirja, 91/ 3 (1986), 293-296.

T&on, S. “The Old Testament Text.” In Qumnm and the History @the BiblicalText. Ed. E M. Cross and S. Tabnon. Cambridge, MA, 1975. Pp. 1-41.

Teeple, H. M. “Notes on a Theologian’s Approach to the Bible,” JBL, 79 (1960),164-166.

Tengstrom, S. “Kristen tolkning av Gamla Testamentet,” Svenk exegetisk Am-bok, 48 (1983), 77-101.

Terrien, S. The Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology San Fran-cisco, 1978.

-. “The Play of Wisdom: Turning Point in Biblical Theology,” HBT 3(1981), 125-153.

-. “Biblical Theology: The Old Testament (1970-1984). A Decade and aHalf of Spectacular Growth,” BIB, 15 / 4 (1985), 127-135.

TeSelle, S. Speaking in Ihrables: A Study in Metaphor and Theology London/Philadelphia, 1975.

Thils, G. “La theologie de l’histoire. Note bibliographique,” EphemeridesTbeologicae Lovanienses, 26 (1950), 87-95.

Thiselton, Anthony. The 7tvo Horizons: New Testament Hermeneutics andPhilosophical Description. Grand Rapids, 1980.

Toombs, L. E. “Old Testament Theology and the Wisdom Literature,” JBR, 23(1955), 193-196.

Towner, W. S. “The Renewed Authority of Old Testament Wisdom for Contem-porary Faith.” In Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion andZheologv. Ed. G. W. Coats and B. 0. Long. Philadelphia, 1977. Pp. 132-147.

-. “Is Old Testament Theology Equal to Its Task? A Response to a Paperby Rolf Knierim,” HBI: 6 / 1 (1984), 73-80.


Tracy, David. The Analogical Imagination: Christian Theology and the Cultureof Pluralism. New York, 1981.

Tracy, David, and Lash, Nicholas, eds. Cosmology and Theology. New York /Edinburgh, 1988.

Tsevat, M. “Theology of the Old Testament-A Jewish View,” HBI: 8 / 2(1986), 33-50.

Tucker, Gene M., Batersen, David L., and Wilson, Robert R., eds. Canon, 7&e-ology, and Old Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Brevard S.Cbil&. Philadelphia, 1988.

Uffenheimer, B. “Biblical Theology and Monotheistic Myth,” Immanuel, 14(1982), 7-24.

Van Seters, J. In Search of History: Historiogmpby in the Ancient World andthe Origins of Biblical History New Haven / London, 1983.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. ‘A Lamp in the Labyrinth: The Hermeneutics of ‘Asthetic’Theology,” Trinity Journal, NS 8 (1987), 25-56.

Vatke, Wilhelm. Die bibliscbe Tbeologie wissenscbaflicb dargestellt, I: DieReligion des Alten Testaments. Berlin, 1835.

Vaux, R. de. “A propos de la Theologie Biblique,” ZAW 68 (1956), 225-227.-. “Method in the Study of Early Hebrew History.” In The Bible in Modern

Scholarship. Ed. J. P. Hyatt. Nashville, 1965. Pp. 15-17.-. “Peut-on &ire une ‘theologie de I’AT’?” In Bible et Orient Paris, 1967.

Pp. 59-71. Trans. “Is it Possible to Write a ‘Theology of the OT?” InR. de Vaux, 7?re Bible and fhe Ancient Near East. Garden City, NY, 1971.Pp. 49-62.

-. “Presence and Absence in History: The Old Testament View,” Con-cilium, 5 (1969), 5-12.

Vawter, B. “History and Kerygma in the Old Testament.” In A Light Unto MyPath: Old Testament Studies in Honor of Jacob M. Myers. Ed. H. Bream etal. Philadelphia, 1974. Pp. 475492.

Veijola, T. “Finns det en gammaltestamentlig teologi?” Svensk exegetisk &-bok, 48 (1983), 10-30.-. “Ihnoitus kohtaamisena. Vanhan testamentin teologinen perusstruk-

tuuri,” Teologinen aikakauskizja, 90 / 5 (19851, 381-390.-. “Vanhan testamentin teologia ja ‘historiallinen hermeneutiikka’,” Te-

ofoginen aikakauskirja, 9112 (1986), 118-121.-. “Vanhan testamentin tutkimus ja teologia eilen ja tam&in,” Teologinen

aikakauskirja, 91/ 3 (1986), 180-189.Verhoef, Pieter A. “Some Thoughts on the Present-day Situation in Biblical

Theology,” Westminster Theological Journal, 33 (1970), l-19.Vetter, D. Jahwes Mit-Sein ein Ausdruck des Segens. Arbeiten zur Theologie,

45. Stuttgart, 1971.Vicary, D. R. “Liberalism, Biblical Criticism, and Biblical Theology,” Angficon

Theological Review, 34 (1950), 114-121.Vischer, W. Das Cbristuszeugnis des AT Zurich, 1934. Trans. The Witness of

the Old Testament to Christ. London, 1949.


Vogels, Walter. “Biblical Theology for the ‘Haves’ and the ‘Have-nots’,” Scienceet Esprit, 39 (1987), 193-210.

Vorgrimler, Herbert, ed. Dogmatic vs. Biblical Theology. Montreal, 1964.Vos, G. Biblical Tbeologv. Grand Rapids, 1948.Vriezen, Th. C. Hoofo!lijnen der Tbeologie van bet Oude Testament. Wagenin-

gen, 1954. Trans. An Outline of Old Testament Tbeologv. 2nd ed. Newton,MA, 1970.

-. “Geloof, openbaring en geschiedenis in de nieuwste Oude-Testamen-tische Theologie,” Kerk en Theologie, 16 (1956), 97-113, 210-218.

Wacker, B. Narrative Tbeologie? Munich, 1977.Wagner, S. “Zur Frage nach einem Gegenstand einer Theologie des AT.” In

Fides et Communicatio. Festscbriff M. Doerne. Ed. D. Rijssler et al. Gbttin-gen, 1970, 391-411.

-. “ ‘Biblische Theologien’ und ‘Biblische Theologie,’ ” 7ZZ. 103 (1978),791-793.

Walkenhorst, K.-H. “Theologie der Psalmen. Eine kritische Stellungnahmezur biblischen Theologie von Hans-Joachim Kraus,” Zeitscluift fiirkatholiscbe ‘Theofogie, 104 (1982), 25-47.

Wallace, D. “Biblical Theology: Past and Future,” 7Z, 19 (19631, 88-105.Walther, James Arthur. “The Significance of Methodology for Biblical The-

ology,” Perspective, 10 (1969), 217-233.Ware, J. H. “Rethinking the Possibility of a Biblical Theology,” Perspectives in

Religious Studies, 10 (1983), 5-13.Watson, Philip S. “The Nature and Function of Biblical Theology,” ExpDm,

73 (1962) 195-200.Watts, John D. W. Basic Patterns in Old Testament Religion. New York, 1971.Weinrich, H. “Narrative Theology,” Concifium, 5 / 9 (1973), 46-56.Weinrich,. M. “Grenzen der Erinnerung. Historische Kritik und Dogmatik im

Horizont Biblischer Theologie. Systematische Voriiberlegungen.” In“Wenn nicbt jetzt, wann dann?“AufsBtzefiir Hans-Joacbim Kraus zum 65.Geburtstag. Ed. H.-G. Geyer. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1983. Pp. 327-338.

Weinsheimer, Joel C. Gadamer’s Hermeneutics: A Reading of ‘Ruth andMethod. New Haven/London, 1985.

Weiser, Arthur. Glaube und Gescbicbte. Stuttgart, 1931.Weiss, Men. fie Bible From within: The Method of Total Interpretation.

Jerusalem, 1984.Wellek, R. and A. Warren. Theory of Literature, 3rd ed. New York, 1977.Wells, Paul Ronald. James Barr and the Bible: Critique of a New Libemlism.

Phillipsburg, NJ, 1980.Wernberg-Miiller, I? “Is There an Old Testament Theology?” Hibbert Journal,

59 (19601, 21-29.West, C. “On Hei’s Eclipse of Biblical Narrative,” Union Seminary Quarterly

Review, 37 (1982), 299-302.Westermann, C., ed. Probleme alttestamentlicber Hermeneutik. Aufsiitze zum

Verstehen desAlten Testaments. TBii, 11. Munich, 1960. Trans. repr. EOTH.Atlanta, 1979 (= Essays on Old Testament Interpretation. London, 1963).


-. “Simr und Gmnze religionsgeschichtlicher Parallelen,” TLZ, 90 (1965),489-496.

-. “The Way of the Promise through the Old Testament.” In OTCX ATheological Discussion. Ed. Bernhard W. Anderson. New York, 1969. Pp.200-224.

-. fie Old Testament and Jesus Christ ‘Minneapolis, 1970.-. “Das hermeneutische Problem in der Theologie.” In C. Westermann,

Forscbung am Alten Testaments: Gesammelte Studien, II. Munich, 1974.Pp. 68-84.

-. “Zu Zwei Theologien des AT,” EvT 34 (1974), 96-112.-. Tbeologie des AT in Grundziigen. Gottingen, 1978. Trans. Elements of

Old Testament Tlieologv. Atlanta, 1982.-. What Does the Old Testament Say About God? Atlanta, 1978.-. “The Interpretation of the Old Testament.” In EOTH. Ed. C. Wester-

mann. Repr. Atlanta, 1979. Pp. 40-49.-. “Remarks on the Theses of Bultmann and Baumgartel.” In EOTH. Ed.

C. Westermann. Repr. Atlanta, 1979. Pp. 123-133.-. ‘Aufgaben einer zuktinftigen Biblischen Theologie.” In C. Wester-

mann, Ertn?ge der Forsclmng am Alten Testament: Gesammelte Studien,III. TBti, 73. Munich, 1984. Pp. 201-221.

Wharton, J. A. “The Occasion of the Word of God: An Unguarded Essay onthe Character of the Old Testament as the Memory of God’s Story withIsrael,“Austin Presbyterian Seminary Bulletin lRacultyed.), 84 (1968), 5-54.

Whybray, R. “Old Testament Theology-A Non-existent Beast?” In Scripture:Meaning and Method. Essays Presented to Anthony Tyrell Hanson for HisSeventieth Birthday. Ed. B. P Thompson. Pickering, North Yorkshire, 1987.Pp. 168-180.

Wilch, J. R. Time and Event. Leiden, 1969.Wilckens, U. “Uber die Bedeutung historischer Kritik in der Bibelexegese.”

In Was heisst Auslegung der Heiligen Scbrift? Ed. W. Joest et al. Regensburg,1966. Pp. 85ff.

Wildberger, Hans. “Auf dem Wege zu einer biblischen Theologie,” Evl: 19(1959) 70-90.

Wink, Walter. The Bible in Human Tmnsformation: Toward a New Paradigmfor Biblical Study Philadelphia, 1980.

-. Tmnsforming Bible Study Nashville, 1988.Wolfe, R. E. “The Terminology of Biblical Theology,” JBR, 15 (1947). 143-147.Wolff, H. W. “Hauptprobleme alttestamentlicher Prophetie,” Evl: 15 (1955),

116-168.-. “Zur Hermeneutik des Alten Testaments,” EvT 16 (1956), 140-180.

Trans. “The Hermeneutics of the Old Testament,” lnterp, 15 (1961), 439-472. Repr. in EOTH. Ed. C. Westermann. Atlanta, 1979. Pp. 160-199.

-. “The Old Testament in Controversy: Interpretive Principles and Il-lustration,” lnterp, 12 (1958), 281-291.

-. “Das Alten Testament und das Probleme der existentialen Interpreta-tion,” EvT 23 (1963). 1-17.


-. Anthropology of the Old Testament. London/Philadelphia, 1974.-. “The Understanding of History in the Old Testament Prophets.” In

EOTH. Ed. C. Westermann. Repr. Atlanta, 1979. Pp. 336-355.-. “The Elohistic Fragments in the Pentateuch.” In W. Brueggemann and

H. W. Wolff, The Vitality of Old Testament Tmdifions. 2nd ed. Atlanta, 1982.Pp. 67-82. First translated in Intern 26 (1972), 158-173. Originally pub-lished as “Zur Thematik der elohistischen Fragmente im Pentateuch,” Ev?:29 (1969), 59-72.

-. “The Kerygma of the Deuteronomic Historical Work.” In W. Brueg-gemann and H. W. Wolff, The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions. 2nd ed.Atlanta, 1982. Pp. 83-100. Originally published as “Das Kerygma desdeuteronomischen Geschichtswerks,” ZAB! 73 (1961), 171-186.

-. “The Kerygma of the Yahwist.” In W. Brueggemann and H. W. Wolff,The Vitality of Old Testament Ilnditions. 2nd ed. Atlanta, 1982. First trans-lated in Interp, 20 (1966), 131-158. Originally published as “Das Kerygmades Jahwisten,” EvT, 24 (1964) 73-98.

Wolff, H. W., ed. Probleme bibliscber Tbeofogie. Gerbard von Rad zum 70.Gebuztstag. Munich, 1971.

Wolff, H. W., Rendtorff, R., and Pamrenberg, W. Gerlmrd von Rad: Seine Be-deutungfir die Iheologie. Munich, 1973.

Wrede, William. “The Task and Method of ‘New Testament Theology.“’ InR. Morgan, ed., 7&e Nature of New Testament Theology. SBT, 2 I 25. Naper-ville, IL, 1973. Pp. 68-116.

Wright, G. Ernest. The Old Testament Against Its Environment. SBT, I/ 2.London I Chicago, 1950.

-. God Who Acts: Biblical TbeologV as Recital. SBT, l/8. London / Chi-cago, 1952.

-. “Reflections Concerning Old Testament Theology.” In Studia Biblicaet Semitica. Festscbrifl 721. C. Vriezen. Wageningen, 1966. Pp. 376-388.

-. The Old Testament and Theology New York, 1969.-. “Historical Knowledge and Revelation.” In Translating and Under-

standing the Old Testament: Essays in Honor of Herbert Gordon May. Ed.H. T. Frank and W. L. Reed. Nashville, 1970. Pp. 279-303.

-. “The Theological Study of the Bible.” In 17re Interpreter’s One-VolumeCommentary on the Bible. Nashville, 1971. I? 983.

Wiirthwein, E. “Bemerkungen zu Wilhelm Vischer, Das Cluistuszeugnis desAlten Testaments,” Deufscbe fieologie, 3 (1936), 259-273.

-. “Amos-Studien,” Z4W 62 (1950), 10-52.-. “Zur Theologie des AT,” TBu, 36 (19711, 185-208.Young, Edward J. The Study of Old Testament TbeologV Today. London, 1958.-. “What is Old Testament Biblical Theology?” EvQ, 31 (1959), 136-142.Zahrnt, H. “Religiose Aspekte gegenwartiger Welt- und Lebenserfahrung. Re-

flexionen tiber die Notwendigkeit einer neuen Erfahrungstheologie,” m71 (1974), 94-122.

Zenger, E. “Die Mitte der alttestamentlichen Glaubensgeschichte,” Kate-cbetische Bliitfel; 101 (1976), 3-16.


-. “Beobachtungen zur Komposition und Theologie der jahwistischenUrgeschichte.” In Dynamik im Won; Lebre von der Bibel; Leben aus derBibel. FestscluiJ? des Katholiscben Bibelwerks in Deutschland. Stuttgart,1983. Pp. 35-54.

Zimmerli, W. “Verheissung und Erfiillung,” EvT, 12 (1952-1953), 34-59. ‘l?ans.“Promise and Fulfillment,” Intezp, 15 (1961), 310-338. Repr. in EOTH. Ed.C. Westermann. Atlanta, 1979. Pp. 89-122.

-. “ ‘Offenbarung’ im Alten Testament. Ein Gesprach mit R. Rendtorff,”Ev’l: 22 (1962), 15-31.

-. “G. von Rad, Theologie des AT,” n 13 (1963), 100-111.-. “Die historisch-kritische Bibelwissenschaft und die Verktindigungs-

aufgabe der Kirche,” EvT 23 (1963), 17-31.-. “Alttestamentliche Traditionsgeschichte und Theologie.” In Probleme

Bibliscber Tbeologie. Gerbazd von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag. Ed. Hans WalterWolff. Munich, 1971. Pp. 632-647.

-. Grundriss der alttestamenflicben Tbeologie. Theologische Wissen-schaft, 3. Stuttgart, 1972. Trans. Old Testament 7heologv in Outline.Atlanta, 1978.

-. “Erw&gungen zur Gestalt einer alttestamentlichen Theologie,” H.Z,98 (1973) 81-98.

-. Studien zur alttestamentlicben Theologie und Propbetie. TBti, 51.Munich, 1974.

-. “Zum Problem der ‘Mitte des Alten Testaments’,” Evl: 35 (1975),97-l 18.-. “Biblische Theologie I. Altes Testament.” In Theologiscbe Realenzy-

kloptidie, VI. Ed. G. Krause and G. Miiller. Berlin/New York, 1980. Pp.426-455.

-. “Biblical Theology,” HBT, 4 (1982), 95-139.-. “Biblische Theologie,” Berliner Tbeologiscbe Zeitschriff, 1(1984), 5-26.Zirker, Hans. Die kultiscbe Vergegenwtirtigung der Vergangenheit in den Psalm-

en. BO M, 1964.Zobel, H.-J. ‘Altes Testament-Literatursammlung und Heilige S&rift,” HZ,

105 (1980), 81-92.Zwanger, C. “ ‘Kritischer miissten mir die Historisch- Kritischen sein!’ Hinter

Barth zurtick,” Evl: 43 (1983), 370-379.Zyl, A. H. van. “The Relation Between the Old Testament and the New

Testament,” Hermeneufica (1970), 9-22.

Index of Subjects

actualization, 8, 75-77allegory, 96, 192anachronism, 116analogy, principle of, 99, 128, 150,

153,154,180,198annunciation, 88anthropocentrism, 128anthropology, 17, 39-42, 63, 110,

113,158antitype, 179, 180. See also type;

typologyapocalyptic, 62, 93, 150approach

book-by-book, 62, 70canonical, 5, 89, 96, 98, 107-110,

114, 135, 136constructive, 58critical 13-17, 20, 21, 30, 46, 47,

62, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 82, 91,93, 94, 96, 98-104, 110, 115-120, 123, 125, 127-132, 138,188, 189, 196-199

descriptive, 16, 31-33, 89. Seealso descriptive task

diachronic, 71-79formation-of-tradition, 77, 79-85,

86, 104. See also traditionhistorical, 20, 33, 51, 60, 92, 94,

96, 162, 200. See also criti-cism: historical; method: his-torical-critical

history-of-religions, 9, 18, 19, 23,24, 50, 96, 104, 112, 190. Seealso Religionsgescbicbte

literary, 7-9, 13, 62, 89, 95, 96,99, 100, 104, 112, 132-138,176, 201-203

longitudinal, 205. See &otheme: logitudinal

methodological, 204-206multiplex, 111-114, 183, 184,

191, 205, 207multi-valent, 163sociological, 90

topical-thematic, 68traditio-historical, 51, 60, 71-79,

92, 94, 96unilinear, 114, 205

archeology, 202authority, 13, 16, 20, 45, 56, 57,

95, 106, 107, 121, 137

Biblical theologycritical, 13-17, 20, 21, 30, 46, 47,

62, 72, 73, 75-77, 82, 91, 93,94, 96, 98-104, 110, 115, 116-120, 123, 125, 127-132, 138,188, 189, 196, 197-199

definition of, 11, 16historical discipline, 14, 16, 17,

18history of, 76, 92, 115, 116, 126,

202nature of, 17new, 103-111Roman Catholic, 2, 3“synthetic modern,” 96, 97

Biblical Theology Movement, 2,27, 104

biblicism, 185bipolarity/bipolar, 89, 91blessings, 69bruta facta, 115, 131

canon, 14, 32, 43, 45, 46, 55, 60,66, 67, 81, 85, 95, 100, 104, 106-109, 113, 129, 130, 133, 135-137,144, 165, 184, 185, 204

“canon within the canon,” 66, 67,107

canonical criticism, 67, 109canonization, 85, 105, 205cause-effect, 197, 198center, 3, 4, 9, 40, 42, 44, 47, 51-

54, 58, 60, 63, 64, 66, 70, 74, 80,81, 83, 86, 92, 97, 107, 110, 112,113, 115, 129, 139, 140, 142-146,148-164, 166-171, 194, 203, 204

2 5 2


Christ. See Jesus ChristChrist-event, 149, 150, 174, 181Christ-message, 174Christianism, 19Christomonism, 173, 178close reading, 135communion concent. 2, 87, 143comparative religibn, 104, 183.

See also approach: history-of-religions

confession, 68, 71, 121, 149conservatism, 18, 20, 22context, 5, 21, 30, 32, 33, 38, 101,

104, 107, 108, 110, 126, 130,176, 178, 181, 184-186, 188, 190,192, 202, 207

continuity, 68, 80, 85, 87, 145,171, 172, 174, 184

covenant formula, 40creation theology, 54, 171Creator, 55, 93, 154credo, 147crisis, 1, 2, 69, 70, 125, 164, 194,

198, 208criticism

canonical, 67, 109content, 66, 167historical, 17, 46, 82, 83, 95, 98,

100, 108, 131. See also ap-uroach: historical: method: his-iorical-critical

literary, 7-9, 13, 62, 89, 95, 96,99, 100, 104, 112, 132-138,176, 201-203

new, 135, 136philosophical, 17

cult, 4, 54, 56, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67,69, 70, 76, 148, 156, 157, 205

Decalogue, 68, 69descriptive task, 4, 16, 18, 28-34,

36, 37, 45, 46, 49, 56, 58, 59, 63,68, 82, 89, 96, 101, 103, 107-109,143

Deuteronomist, 78, 147developmentalism, 19, 20dialectic, 86-89, 91-94, 177dialectical theology, 18discontinuity, 145, 172-174, 184,

187dissimilarity, 184, 207disunity, 172, 187

dogmatic theology. See systematictheology

doom, 54dual concept, 4, 63, 66, 142, 156dualism, 11,120

election, 45, 64, 65, 67, 70, 86, 89,92, 141, 149, 157, 159, 169, 192,204

Enlightenment, 10, 13, 18, 101, 197error, 118, 122eschatology, 41, 150, 156, 177, 179event(s), 73, 120, 121, 123-126,

129-131, 147, 149, 150, 158, 169,174, 177, 179, 181, 182, 185,192, 193, 198, 201, 204

evolution, 23, 25exegesis, 15, 21, 77, 96, 101, 102,

133, 176, 179, 185, 196, 199, 202existence, 39, 52, 64-67, 70, 78, 79,

104, 118, 128, 164, 169, 189exodus, 192, 204, 205experience, historical, 72, 197,

199. 201

fact(s), 17, 37, 72, 81, 99, 111, 118,120, 121, 124-126, 128, 131, 132,147, 150, 168, 173, 174, 176,180,184, 188,190

facticity, 99, 118, 124, 125failure, 132, 142, 173-175faith, 6, 18, 25, 26, 30, 36, 54, 57,

59, 64, 66, 72, 73, 77, 86, 88, 90,97, 99-101, 106, 109, 111, 115-118, 121, 122, 126, 129, 131,139, 143, 147, 148, 158-160, 163,167, 170, 173, 176, 188, 189,200, 201, 205

feeling, 18fiction, 99, 116, 138fulfillment, 142, 149, 150, 174,

176, 181-183, 189, 192fundamentalism, 95Fundamentalist-Modernist con-

troversy, 27future, 3, 4, 17, 34, 37, 40, 55, 56,

62, 70, 85, 94, 95, 97, 105, 127,141, 148, 149, 163, 170, 182,193, 205

Godacts, activity of, 6, 8, 22, 71, 73,

254 INDEX OF SUBJECTS

93, 122, 131, 168-170, 176,195, 198, 203

center, 148-164, 166-171, 194,203, 204

doctrine of, 11, 12, 17, 22, 40,41, 113, 153, 166

eternal, 45, 141existence, 169holiness of, 141, 159kingdom of, 41, 113, 142, 159,

177, 205kingship of, 49, 141Lord of history, 22lordship, 141_presence of, 5, 44, 69, 86-88, 94,

170reality of, 199rulership of, 64, 141, 159, 192self-disclosure of, 169. 170. 201,

203word of, 14, 45, 57, 91, 119, 138,

195God-hypothesis, 116, 125God-talk, 61gospel, 81, 87, 101, 141, 173, 175,

189grace, 64

Hagiographa, 43happening, 92, 120, 125, 197Hebraism, 19, 87Hegelianism, 19Heilsgescbicbte, 73, 110, 125, 127,

147, 183. See also salvation his-tory

Hexateuch, 69, 77, 149historical-critical method. See ap-

proach: historical: criticism: his-torical; method: historical-critical

historical experience, 72, 197, 199,201

historical Jesus, 118, 119historical theology, 33, 79, 100, 101historicism, 24, 25, 48, 49historicity, 73, 99, 118, 119, 175historic progression, 42-44, 61,

109,119Historic, 73, 110historiography, 73, 119, 123, 131,

132history

critical picture of, 13-17, 20, 21,

30, 46, 47, 62, 72, 73, 75-77,82, 91, 93, 94, 96, 98-104, 110,115-120, 123, 125, 127-132,138, 188, 189, 196-199

faith picture of, 115,118history of Israel, 4, 23, 26, 111,

117, 118, 121, 128, 131, 147,173, 174, 175,202

history of religions. See approach:history-of-religions,

history of tradition, 73, 85, 115,116, 128-131, 153, 182. See &otradition

history of transmission, 115-117,128-131, 153, 182, 202

“howness,” 123

imagination, 99incarnation, 175inspiration, !3, 15, 16, 20, 22, 95,

206interpretation, 10, 25, 30-32, 46,

56, 57, 63, 64, 67, 73, 77, 93, 95,108, 115, 122, 124-126, 129, 130,136, 146, 148, 150, 153, 174,177, 178, 184-186, 188, 189, 196,199, 200, 201, 203

introspection, 73

Jamnia, 55, 85Jesus Christ, 22, 26, 43, 57, 77, 81,

85, 92, 93, 93, 101, 118, 119,146, 149, 150, 161, 174-182, 192,193

Jewish scholarship, 6, 7, 34-38Judaism, 19,37,87, 157judgment, 31, 48, 54, 55, 70, 84,

93, 141, 147, 148, 170, 183, 184,192,195,196, 201

Kantianism, 126,131kerygma, 71, 73, 118, 119, 124, 149kingdom of God, 41, 113, 142, 159,

177, 205knowledge, 13, 26, 40, 55, 95, 163,

170

law, 5, 20, 43, 45, 46, 64, 65, 67,70,93,102,157,173,175,189

legend, 96, 116liberalism, 13, 25, 75, 97life, 18, 24, 30, 41, 49, 53, 56, 61,


65, 69, 85, 92, 110, 134, 157,180,186,189,190,192, 205

literaryapproach/criticism, 7-9, 13, 62,

89, 95, 96, 99, 100, 104, 112,132-138, 176, 201-203

paradigm, 8, 100,132, 136,138study, 7-9, 13, 62, 89, 95, 96, 99,

100, 104, 112, 132, 133-138,176, 201-203

Iiteratum, 7, 34, 38, 45, 46, 89, 90,92, 98, 100-102, 106, 133, 134-138, 147,162, 166, 167, 169, 188

magic, 23, 64, 65, 67, 70man, 3-5, 16, 20, 22, 26, 39, 41,

42, 48-50, 55, 56, 63-66, 74, 75,91, 92, 94, 111, 124, 126, 128,134, 142, 143, 147, 156, 158,160, 169, 170, 174, 175, 181,193, 195,196, 200, 205

Marcionism, 186meaning, 22, 30, 35, 45, 49, 63, 65,

77, 90, 93, 121, 122, 125, 126,127, 128, 130-132, 135, 175-178,184, 188, 195-197, 199-202

mercy, 93Messiah, 178method

biblical-exegetical, 15confessional, 51, 73, 74, 100,

108, 120, 133, 143, 148, 153cross-section, 26, 47-60, 107,

113,143descriptive, 16, 30-33, 89. See

also descriptive taskdiachronic, 71-79dogmatic-didactic, 39-42evolutionary, 23formation-of-tradition, 77, 79-85,

86, 104genetic-progressive, 42-47grammatical-historical, 20-25historical-critical, 13, 16, 17, 20,

30, 72, 75, 76, 82, 115, 116,117, 119, 120, 125, 127-129,131, 132, 188, 189, 197-199

historical-theological, 194-196multiplex, 111-114. See also ap-

proach: multiplex“New Biblical Theology,” 103-111thematic-dialectical, 86-94

theological, 38topicaL 60-71traditio-historical, 51, 60, 71-79,

92, 94, 96Moses, 42, 43, 63, 64, 68, 110, 180multiplex canonical OT theology,

111-114, 194-208myth, 96,121,138,150,174

narrative, 74, 100, 102, 132, 136-138

patural theology, 98neo-Kantianism, 131neologist, 15“new criticism,” 135, 136nonnormative, 33, 34, 37, 108normative, 26, 28, 30-34, 40, 56,

73, 96, 99, 101, 104-108, 134,135, 136-138

objective/objectivity, 6, 8, 25, 26,31, 32, 34, 48, 108, 125, 126,198, 200

paradigm, 5, 99, 132, 134-136, 138particularism, 19past, 6, 9, 35, 40, 75, 76, 102, 104,

111, 122, 126, 127, 132, 141,148, 149,170, 201

Pentateuch, 43, 45, 69, 70, 77, 79,157

philology, 34, 95philosophical theology, 15philosophy, 18, 19, 25, 33,48, 195Pietism, 12, 14positivism, 119, 126, 131premise, 82, 151, 155, 179prescriptive, 34, 96, 101present, 3, 6, 8, 9, 13, 22, 26, 28,

30, 35, 40, 42, 45, 56, 63, 68, 75-77, 85, 97, 102, 104, 105, lll-113, 117, 118, 125, 126-128, 131,141, 157, 159, 163, 166, 170-172,174,182, 186,192,195, 204, 205

presupposition, 33, 126, 128, 154,155, 173, 206

Priestly Writers, 3, 78, 79, 93, 150principle

dogmatic, 12, 15-17, 21, 39, 42,55, 56, 60, 63, 98, 100, 113,158,198

historical, 49

256

historico-genetic, 18, 21of analogy, 128of coherence, 87of congeniality, 49of consent, 99of criticism, 99of selectivity, 49, 53, 62systematic, 49

progressive revelation, 4, 43, 52promise, 5, 44, 52-54, 110, 113,

142, 149, 150, 159, 173-176, 181,182, 183, 189, 192

proof, 11, 12, 15, 22, 131, 175-177proof-texts, 11, 12, 15, 22prophecy, 69, 93,102, 148, 149,

175, 176prophets, 3, 20, 43, 46, 54, 55, 62,

63, 67, 69-71, 87, 110, 130, 141,147-149, 174, 196, 205

Protestant Orthodoxy, 11, 12proto-history, 120providence, 88, 89

rationalism, 13, 14, 17, 18reality, 32-34, 61, 73, 86, 87, 91,

92, 118, 121, 123-128, 131, 132,139, 141, 189, 195, 197, 199,201, 205

reason, 13, 17, 45, 62, 83, 131,174, 197

reconstruction, 17, 23, 30, 31, 63,73

reductionism, 91, 177relativity, 200relevance, 58, 117, 122, 129, 147,

175, 184religion, 4, 17-21, 23, 25, 26, 33,

40, 48, 49, 55, 63, 90, 97, 104,108, 111, 112, 122, 131, 132,136, 141, 154, 173, 175, 183,184, 202

Religionsgescbicbte, 18, 23-25. Seealso approach: history-of-religions

remnant, 196resurrection, 88, 92, 161re-telling, 74, 75, 92. See also

actualizationrevelation, 4, 13, 20, 23, 25, 41-45,

52, 55, 61, 62, 64, 71, 72, 77, 91,106, 109, 110, 116, 126, 127,

INDEX OF SUBJECTS

158, 169-171, 173, 193, 196, 198,203, 204

righteousness, 164, 166

Sabbath, 87, 154salvation, 5, 20-23, 26, 39, 41-43,

48, 49, 54, 55, 70, 71, 92, 110,115, 118, 123, 125, 127, 128,130, 131, 141, 148, 149, 150,158, 163, 169, 170, 175, 176,179, 192, 193, 195, 201

salvation history, 22, 110, 115,118, 125, 127, 128, 130, 131,148, 149, 150, 163, 179, 193. Seealso Heilsgescbicbte

self-interpretation, 10self-revelation, 55, 146, 169, 171Sitz im Leben, 186sociology, 91“sola scriptura,” 10, 11soteriology, 39-42, 63, 69, 113, 158story, 96, 97, 99, 115, 133-138stratum, strata, 3, 78, 79, 93, 150structure, 4, 15, 17, 20, 40-43, 49,

52, 53, 55, 61, 63, 64, 69, 70, 90,92, 94, 102, 107, 113, 114, 128,142, 152, 154, 156, 157, 158,161, 174, 184, 202, 207

structurahsm, 95, 98subjective, 26, 48, 53, 157, 164, 181supernatural, 99, 197supernaturalism, 13, 18symbol, 139synchronic, 102systematic theology, 12, 15-17, 21,

33, 37, 39, 42, 47, 55, 56, 59, 96,101,102, 111,125, 164, 190, 196

systematization, 50, 141, 158, 164-166, 168, 204

“Tanakh Theology,” 36tension, 19, 43, 51, 88-90, 124,

144, 148-150, 186, 207testimonies, biblical

depth l-5, 7-21, 23, 25, 27, 29-34, 36, 37, 42, 47, 49, 51, 54,58-61, 66, 67, 75, 77, 80-91, 93-108, 111, 114, 121, 123-125,129, 130, 132-139, 142, 143,155, 156, 158-160, 163, 164,

129, 131, 134, 137, 146, 150, 169, 171, 172, 177, 185, 186,


188, 190, 193-201, 203, 205, linditionsgeschicbte. See history of207, 208 tradition

diversity, l-5, 7-21, 23, 25, 27,29-34, 36, 37, 42, 47, 49, 51,54, 58-61, 66, 67, 75, 77, 80-91, 93-108, 111, 114, 121, 123-125, 129, 130, 132-139, 142,143, 155, 156, 158-160, 163,164, 169, 171, 172, 177, 185,186, 188, 190, 193-201, 203,205, 207, 208

transcendence, 99, 197, 199transfiguration, 88Trinity, 178truth, 6, 25, 37, 48, 99, 123, 130,

137, 138, 187,198,199type, 37, 143, 147, 165, 173, 179,

180, 185, 188,189typology 178-180, 183, 192

kerygmatic, 194-196muhiform, 144, 145, 182, 184,

207multiplex, 145, 189, 207

text(s)what it (they) mean(s), 29-32,

59, 63, 64, 83, 90, 102, 103,109, 185, 194

unity, 4, 21, 24, 44, 46, 49-54, 61,64, 70, 76, 78, 80, 84, 85, 87, 91,102, 112, 114, 124-128, 131, 132,139, 141, 143, 145, 151, 152,155, 157, 158, 160, 162, 165,167, 171, 172, 176, 177, 179,180, 187, 191-193, 197, 205-207

universalism, 19, 150what it (they) meant, 6, 29, 30-

32, 36, 63, 83, 89, 90, 102,103, 109, 60, 63, 98, 100, 113,158,198

victory, 69

“thatness,” 123theme(s)

blessing-promise, 52, 54. Seealso promise

war, 10, 18, 25, 28, 69Wellhausenism, 116wisdom literature, 45, 46, 92, 147wisdom theology, 65, 69, 87, 92,

156,171, 205longitudinal, 53, 54, 114, 171,

205, 206presence, 5, 44, 69, 86-88, 94,

170theocracy, 177theology of the Hebrew Bible, I-31,

33-77, 79-83, 85-87, 89, 90, 91-115, 117, 118, 120, 125, 127-131,133, 136, 137, 138-145, 148-166,168, 170-172, 185, 186, 188, 189,190, 194, 196, 198-208

t&ih, 45tradition(s)

word, 14, 22, 45, 57, 72, 88, 91,100, 116, 119, 124, 125, 129,131, 138, 141, 148-150, 158, 169,176,182,186, 191, 195, 198. Seealso God: word of

world, 3, 22, 30, 35, 41, 50, 54, 92,93, 142, 144, 147, 153, 164, 168-171, 194, 200

worldview, 30worship, 43, 93, 157, 158, 169,

205

biblical, 81, 84, 104foundation of, 79, 80, 81, 83historical, 71-73, 81, 157. See

also approach: formation-of-tradition; history of tradition

Yahweh, 40, 55, 56, 61-63, 68-70,87, 116, 123, 126, 129, 140, 143,144, 146, 147, 149, 151, 153,154, 157, 160, 162, 164, 168,170, 174, 182, 183. See also God

Yahwist, 78, 79, 93

Index of Authors

Achtemeier, E., 59Ackroyd, P., 76,107,168Adar, Z., 202Albright, W. I?, 120, 152Ah, A., 120, 157Aher, R., 99, 137, 138Ammon, A. A. von, 15Amsler, S., 172, 187Anderson, B. W., 35, 76Anderson, G. W., 77Andrew, M. E., 152Astruc, J., 13Auvray, I?, 187

Baab, 0. J., 26, 27, 158, 159Baier, J. W., 12Baker, D. L., 6, 161, 167Barnett, T. A., 38Barr, J., 34, 37, 57, 94-98, 111, 112,

124, 133, 134, 158, 173, 178,179, 191,192, 198, 203

Barth, C., 72, 74, 131, 155Barth, K., 195Barth, M., 2Barton, J., 98, 111, 132, 135, 136Bauer, B., 19Bauer, C. L., 15, 17, 18, 39, 48, 172Baumglrtel, I?, 61, 72, 74, 121,

122, 130, 152, 168, 170, 174-176,179, 187

Baumgarten, W., 13Baur, I? C., 20Beauchamp, I!, 159Beck, J. T., 22Benoit, I?, 38, 173Benson, J. E., 13Berlin, A., 137Bertholet, A., 23Betti, E., 35Betz, O., 12, 38, 40Beyerlin, W., 123Birch, B. C., 163Blackman, C., 124Blenkinsopp, J. A., 27, 46, 67, 112

Braaten, C. E, 124, 198Braun, I? M., 38,183,191Bright, J., 94, 120, 187, 192Bruce, E I?, 163, 166, 187, 192Brueggemann, W., 39, 76, 78, 86,

88-90, 94, 103Buber, M., 4Budde, K., 25Buhmann, R., 61, 122, 173-176,

187, 195Burden, J. J., 38Burrows, M., 27, 190Biisching, A. E., 14

Calovius, A., 12Gazelles, H., 187Childs, B. S., 2, 5, 6, 27, 29, 31,

32, 36, 45, 47, 60, 67, 85, 89-91,95-98, 103-112, 135-137, 183,186, 188-191, 196, 202

Chubb, T., 13Clements, R. E., 5, 8, 36, 38, 39, 44-

46, 59, 77, 79, 83, 103, 140Coats, G. W., 78, 79, 107Cobb, J. B., Jr., 198Collins, J. J., 39, 94, 98-101, 111,

126, 137, 138ColIn, D. G. C. von, 15, 19Conzehnann, H., 116Cordero, M. G., 39, 41Craig, C. T., 25Crenshaw, J. L., 65CuIhnann, O., 73, 183, 186, 193Cunliffe-Jones, H., 29

Davidson, A. B., 24Davies, G. H., 71, 140Day, G. E., 21Deissler, A., 3, 27, 39, 168Dentan, R. C., 2, 10, 12, 14, 15, 18-

21, 23, 25, 38-42, 47, 48, 157,159

Deutschmann, J., 12Diem, H., 184, 185

258

INDEX OF AUTHORS 259

Diest, H. A., 11Dietrich, W., 98, 128, 134, 165, 166DiBmann, A., 23Dodd, C. H., 192Duhm, B., 40, 144Dulles, A., 32, 75, 103, 195Durham, J. I., 140Dyrness, W., 5, 39

Ebeling, G., 10, 11, 13, 14, 130,172,197

Eichhorn, J. G., 17Eichrodt, W., 1, 24, 26, 29, 43, 47-

51, 54, 58-60, 72, 86, 91, 110,111, 120, 121, 123, 139, 140,141, 143, 150, 155, 159, 163,178, 180,185, 189, 190, 192

Eissfeldt, O., 26, 33, 48, 51, 59, 108Eliot, T. S., 135Ellis, I? E, 78Enders, H., 202Ernesti, J. A., 15Ernst, W., 39, 47, 162Ewald, H., 22, 23

70, 111, 124, 140, 142-144, 152,156,160,169, 181, 186, 188, 189

Fackre, G., 137Famron, P., 158, 160Feiereis, K., 47Feiner, J., 191Fensham, E C., 159Festorazzi, E, 38Filson, E V., 187, 190, 191, 199Fischer, A., 11Fohrer, G., 3, 4, 27, 39, 63-67, 69,

France, R. T., 191, 192Hank, H. T., 1Freedman, D. N., 29, 78, 85Frei, H. W., 75, 132, 137, 138Fretheim, T. E., 78Fridrichsen, A., 29Fries, J. E, 18Fritsch, C. T., 10, 38Frizzeil, L. E., 86fi6r, K., 164Fuller, D. P, 126Funk, R. W., 197

Gabler, J. I?, 15-18, 21, 26, 28, 34,36, 46, 49, 83, 102, 109, 190

Gadamer, H.-G., 35, 84

Gamper, A.,. 128Gese, H., 80, 81-85, 96, 103-105,

109,187Geyer, H.-G., 58, 125Gilkey, L. B., 75Glait, O., 11Goldberg, M., 137Goldingay, J., 36, 38, 56-60, 103Goppek i.; 192Goshen-Gottstein, M. H.. 7, 35. 36Gottwald, N.K., 47, 51,89-91,132Graf, K. H., 6, 7, 23, 38, 56, 72, 74,

83, 84, 102, 168Grkser, F., 82Grelot, P, 172, 187, 193Groves, J. W., 59, 75-77, 84Gundry, R. H., 191Gundry, S. N., 111Gunneweg, A. H. J., 38, 39, 82, 85,

105,162, 163, 173, 175Guthrie, D., 95

Haacker, K., 80Haag, H., 191Haevernick, H. A. C., 20Hahn, H. I?, 20Haibe, J., 74Hamilton, W., 127Hanson, I?, 5, 6, 7, 36, 57, 59, 86,

88, 89, 161Harnack, A., 186Harrelson, W., 105, 152, 163Harrington, W. J,, 2, 3, 187, 189,

190, 191Harvey, V A., 33, 38, 72Hasel, G. E, 2, 11, 39, 40, 44, 59,

64, 66, 72, 74, 103, 108, 112,115, 116,150, 158,170

Hauerwas, S., 137Hayes, J. H., 8, 65Haymann, C., 12Heinisch, I!, 26, 27Hempel, J., 117, 122-124Henry, C. E H., 75, 137Herbert, A. S., 1Herrmann, S., 152, 156, 157, 160Heschel, A. J., 168Hesse, E, 71, 117-120, 123, 125,

131, 173, 175, 176, 185, 187Hicks, R. L., 38Higgins, A. J. B., 187Hinson, D. E, 39, 41

260

Hirsch, E., 186Hirsch, E. D., 35Hitzig, F., 23Hofius, O., 166Hofmann, J. C. K. van, 22Hsgenhaven, J., 101, 102,160Honecker, M., 72, 118, 147, 148,

155Hoppe, J., 128Hornig, G., 14Hufnagel, W. E, 15Hyatt, J. I!, 11, 29, 103

Imschoot, P. van, 27, 158

Jacob, E., 1, 2, 11, 12, 29, 38, 87,158,168, 169

Janowski, H. N., 81Jasper, E N., 187Jepsen, A., 168Jones, H. O., 134

K;ihler, M., 25, 198Kaiser, G. I! C., 18Kaiser, O., 82, 162.Kaiser, W. C., 5, 39, 44, 52-54, 69,

159Kantzer, K. S., 111K;isemann, E., 197Kautzsch, E., 48Kayser, A., 24, 140, 202Kelsey, D. H., 30, 31, 75, 103King, W. L., 53Kittel, R., 23Klein, G., 125, 141, 159Kneucher, J. J., 23Knierim, R., 106, 152, 163-166, 169Knight, D. A., 71, 78, 80, 83, 84,

85, 106Knight, G. A. E, 158Kijberle, J., 117Koch, K., 125, 170Kijhler, A., 116Kiihler, L., 26, 49, 141, 155, 158,

159Kijnig, E., 24, 25, 49Kort, W. A., 136Kraeiing, E., 25, 38Kraus, H.-J., 2, 3, 10, 12-19, 21, 22,

23, 39, 46, 48, 58, 73, 82, 83, 85,112, 129, 130, 131, 188-190, 196,199, 202, 203

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Krentz, E., 99Kuenen, A., 23Ktimmel, W. G., 13-17Kutsch, E., 47, 55

Ladd, G. E., 22, 197, 198Lampe, G. W. H., 192Landes, G. M., 203Lang, B., 187Laurin, R. B., 106Lehman, C. K., 4, 27, 39, 42-44,

103Leiman, S. Z., 55, 85Ientrieccha, E, 135Lessing, E., 15Levenson, J. D., 7, 36, 37Levine, B. A., 7, 36, 78Licht, J., 134Lindblom, J., 168Lipenius, M., 11Locke, J., 13Loersch, S., 78Lohfink, N., 78,173, 187Lohr, M., 191Long, B. O., 78, 107Longman III, T., 135Lonning, I., 66Lubsczyk, H., 47Lucas, R., 179Luther, M., 11

Maag, V, 72McCarthy, D. J., 47, 55, 140, 202McComiskey, T. E., 55McComieB, E, 137McEvenue, S. E., 58, 78, 105, 106McKenzie, J. L., 4, 27, 39, 46, 60-

62, 64, 69-71, 188, 191MacKenzie, R. A. E, 32M&night, E. V., 132, 133, 137Maier, G., 82Maius, J. H., 12Martens, E. A., 5, 38, 39, 59Martin-Achard, R., 38Mattioh, A., 55, 56Mauser, U., 58, 187Mayo, S. M., 6Mendenhall, G. E., 47,120,140Menken, G., 22Merendino, R. I?, 78Merk, O., 10-12, 14, 16-19, 39, 63Michaelis, J. D., 13

INDEX OF AUTHORS 261

Mildenberger, E, 74, 119, 120, 185,200

Miskotte, K. H., 145, 168, 187Moeller, W. and H., 26Moltmarm, J., 150Mowinckel, S., 78, 98MtiIIer, P-G., 162Murphy, R. E., 163, 164, 165, 173,

178, 181,187,189Nicholson, E. W., 55, 78Nineham, D. E., 187Noack, L., 19North, C. R., 25, 57, 133, 161, 168Noth, M., 40, 79,120,144,203

Obayashi, H., 126-128Oberman, H., 10O’CoIBns, G. G., 126Oden, R. A., 133, 138O’Doherty, E., 187Oehler. G. I?, 20, 21. 42, 43. 140Cemir& M.,.58,-84OIIenburger, B. C., 36, 59, 103Osborn, R. T., 126Osswald, E., 38, 119, 122-125, 199

Pannenberg, W., 76, 110, 124-128,131, 150, 174-176, 180

Payne, J. B., 27, 159, 191Perhtt, L., 19, 47, 55, 140Petersen, D., 97Pfeiffer, R. H., 124Piepenbring, C., 24Pinnock. C. H.. 191Porteous, N. W., 25, 38, 48, 59, 76Porter, E C., 140Preuss, H. D., 6, 65, 170, 173, 187Priest, J. E, 105Procksch, O., 22, 26, 27, 50Prussner, E C., 8, 47, 159

Rad, G. von, 1, 3, 22, 27, 29, 38,45, 47, 48, 51, 52, 59, 60, 61, 67-76, 80, 81, 84, 86, 87, 91, 92, 93,94, 96-98, 104, 109, 110, 115-117, 119-123, 125, 127, 129, 130,132, 145-151, 153, 155, 156, 157,160, 163, 175, 178, 179, 180-184,186, 189, 190-192, 196, 198, 199,200, 206

Ramlot, L., 38Ratzinger, L., 75, 168

Reed, W. L., 1Reisner, E., 197Rendtorff, R., 58, 79, 123, 125,

128,129Reuss, E., 24Reventlow, H. G., 6, 7, 8, 38, 56,

72, 74, 83, 84, 102, 168Ringgren, H., 202, 203Ritschl, D., 98, 134Robertson, D., 113, 138Robertson, 0. P, 191Robinson, H. W., 26Robinson, J. A. T., 2Robinson, J. M., 119, 120, 129,

182, 198Rogerson, J. W., 212Riissler, D., 128, 151Rowley, H. H., 25, 38, 187, 189,

190,192,193Ruler, A. A. van, 172, 177, 187Rylaarsdam, J. C., 47, 124, 159Sanders, J. A., 46, 67, 76, 96, 106,

109Sauter, G., 125Schafer, I?, 55Schlier, H., 202S&mid, H. H., 54, 79, 82, 83, 160,

169Schmidt, L., 61Schmidt, S., 12Schmidt, W. H., 38, 151-154, 162,

191Schmithals, W., 82Schnackenburg, R., 160Schofield, J. N., 27Scholder, K., 13Schulz, H., 152Schulz, S.; 40Scott, R. B. Y., 65Scullion, J. J., 38Seebass, H., 84, 141, 144, 159, 163,

166, 187Seitz, G., 78Sekine, M., 123SeIIin, E., 26, 49, 141, 158, 159Semler, J. S., 13, 14, 15Seters, J. van, 79Siedl, S., 187Siegwah, G., 82, 187Smart, J. D., 104, 105, 172, 187, 189Smend, R., 16, 24, 28, 40, 139,

143, 144, 151, 157, 160, 166

262 INDEX OF AUTHORS

Smith, M., 21, 90So&n, J. A., 119, 120Spener, I? J., 12Spicq, C., 32, 33, 191Spina, E A., 96, 109Spriggs, D. C., 47, 48, 58Stade, B., 24, 40, 144Staerk, W., 25Staiger, E., 202Stamm, J. J., 152StammIer, E., 81Steck, 0. H., 78Stek, J. H., 192StendahI, K., 11, 28, 29, 32, 34, 36,

46, 59, 63, 83, 89, 102, 103, 109,134-137, 200

Sternberg, M., 99,137,138Steudel, J. C. E, 20Steuernagel, C., 25, 190Stoebe, H.-J., 74, 168Strange, J., 20, 129, 187, 189Stuhlmacher, I?, 58, 80-85, 85, 99,

166Sturm, R., 82

TaImon, S., 56, 202Tappert, T. G., 12Taylor, S., 21Terrien, S., 5, 39, 69, 86-88, 91, 94,

103,105Thiselton, A., 35Thompson, R. J., 23, 57, 161Tindal, M., 13Toland, J., 13Towner, W. S., 163, 164Tracy, D., 137Troeltsch, E., 126, 128, 199Tsevat, M., 7, 34, 35Tucker, G. M., 97

Vanhoozer, K. J., 137Vatke, W., 19, 20Vaux, R. de, 32, 33, 40, 120, 191Verhoef, P. A., 191, 193Vielhauer, I?, 151Vischer, W., 26, 176-178, 187Vorgrimler, H., 202Vos, G., 27, 43, 190Vriezen, T. C., 1, 2, 4, 27, 39, 50,

51, 54, 87, 91, 103, 111, 131,142, 143, 146, 152, 159, 177,179,193

Wagner, S., 40, 58, 79, 82, 83,168

WaIther, J. A., 5, 59, 120, 150, 153,174

Wrarren, A., 135Watson, P. S., 29Weidner, J. C., 12Weinfeld, M., 78Weinsheimer, J. C., 35Weippert, M., 120Weiser, A., 123, 124, 155Weismann, C. E., 12Weiss, M., 135, 202Wellek, R., 135WeIlhausen, J., 19, 23, 24, 40, 143,

151Wells, I? R., 97, 191Wernberg-MiiIIer, P., 29West, C., 132Westermamr, C., 3, 5, 39, 45, 66,

75, 78, 86, 88, 91-94, 103, 116,122, 153, 156, 161, 169, 173,174,181, 187,175,181,182,189,192

Wette, W. M. L. de, 18-20Wharton, J. A., 133Whybray, R., 57, 79, 160, 161Wilckens, U., 13, 128, 151, 197Wildberger, H., 141, 159W&en, R. L., 126Wilson, R. R., 97, 151Witter, J. B., 13WoIff, H. W., 41, 150, 153, 170,

179, 184, 190, 192WooIIcombe, K. J., 192Wrede, W., 11, 28, 34, 36, 46, 83,

102, 109Wright, G. E., I, 26, 27, 29, 38, 39,

47, 50, 51, 66, 98, 117, 120, 155,158,159,173,178,194

Wiirthwein, E., 10, 38, 39, 162

Young, E. J.. 27, 38

Zachari5, G. T., 14, 15Zedler. I. H.. 12Zenger,‘E., 169Zimmerli, W., 3-5, 27, 38-40, 45,

67-70, 83, 85, 92, 112, 129, 152-155, 157, 158, 162, 169, 174,181, 187,192, 193

Zyl, A. H. van, 187

Documents

OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY - SABDA.orgmedia.sabda.org/alkitab-2/PDF Books/00005 Hasel Gerhard Old...Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, 1974-) Theologische Literaturzeitung